If a cleric casts Spiritual Guardians and moves into an enemies space activating the "when the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn(that turn being the clerics turn)" does that creature takes damage on the clerics turn? Then, that same creature is next up on the initiative would it take damage again activating "starts its turn there"?
This is one of those tricky areas where the wording is unclear enough that it's been written up in the Sage Advice Compendium (search for 'moonbeam' to find the relevant section).
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. [...] 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. [emphasis added] If the creature is still in the area at the start of its turn, it is subjected to the area’s effect.
I think no damage would occur until the creatures start their turn in the AOE but, they would take a lot of damage on subsequent turns. Either that, or they would back off and the spell could protect the whole party from melee attacks.
I think when it says "when the creature enters the area" it means of their own volition - when they move themselves into the area. If you move the area onto them - they're not so much entering the area as being enveloped by it.
In the end - it's not very clear. So up to the DM.
I think when it says "when the creature enters the area" it means of their own volition - when they move themselves into the area. If you move the area onto them - they're not so much entering the area as being enveloped by it.
In the end - it's not very clear. So up to the DM.
This makes the most sense. Similar to how forced movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
I think when it says "when the creature enters the area" it means of their own volition - when they move themselves into the area. If you move the area onto them - they're not so much entering the area as being enveloped by it.
In the end - it's not very clear. So up to the DM.
I agree with the statement that it's not very clear. RAI and RAW differ here for many, as the sentence can be interpreted in different ways by different people. That said, the emphasized statement: "when the creature enters the area" it means of their own volition" I don't believe this is correct. If you read that Sage Advice about Moonbeam linked above:
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!
It's clearly stated there that it does not ned to be of the creature's own volition. This is a key difference in some cases, one of which is pointed out: you hurl an enemy into the spell's area with Thunderwave, Repelling Blast, etc. Interestingly, if you grapple an enemy that is already inside Spirit Guardians' area and drags them out and back into the spell's area, they'll take the damage. (This would obviously require someone else to have cast the spell since it moves with the caster) Similarly, this means that if you had a trap on the floor that would throw an enemy toward you, you could cast Spirit Guardians and activate the trap to inflict damage on your turn. If you instead ran forward causing the creature to be in the spell's area, it would not inflict damage.
I think when it says "when the creature enters the area" it means of their own volition - when they move themselves into the area. If you move the area onto them - they're not so much entering the area as being enveloped by it.
In the end - it's not very clear. So up to the DM.
I agree with the statement that it's not very clear. RAI and RAW differ here for many, as the sentence can be interpreted in different ways by different people. That said, the emphasized statement: "when the creature enters the area" it means of their own volition" I don't believe this is correct. If you read that Sage Advice about Moonbeam linked above:
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!
It's clearly stated there that it does not ned to be of the creature's own volition. This is a key difference in some cases, one of which is pointed out: you hurl an enemy into the spell's area with Thunderwave, Repelling Blast, etc. Interestingly, if you grapple an enemy that is already inside Spirit Guardians' area and drags them out and back into the spell's area, they'll take the damage. (This would obviously require someone else to have cast the spell since it moves with the caster) Similarly, this means that if you had a trap on the floor that would throw an enemy toward you, you could cast Spirit Guardians and activate the trap to inflict damage on your turn. If you instead ran forward causing the creature to be in the spell's area, it would not inflict damage.
So because you've moved them into the spell's effect, they take the damage at the beginning of their next turn. They don't take it immediately, as per pocketmouse's reply above.
If a cleric casts Spiritual Guardians and moves into an enemies space activating the "when the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn(that turn being the clerics turn)" does that creature takes damage on the clerics turn? Then, that same creature is next up on the initiative would it take damage again activating "starts its turn there"?
The creature has not "entered the area" they're already in the area. When you move the spell around you move the area the spell affects, but even if you change the area the spell affects to an area occupied by a creature, that creature hasn't "entered" the area this turn (again, because they're already in that area). So No. Moving the effect around doesn't trigger the "when a creature enters" effect.
If you moved the spell, then pushed a creature into this new spot? Then it would work. But already in the spot? No.
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 when it says "when the creature enters the area" it means of their own volition - when they move themselves into the area. If you move the area onto them - they're not so much entering the area as being enveloped by it.
In the end - it's not very clear. So up to the DM.
I agree with the statement that it's not very clear. RAI and RAW differ here for many, as the sentence can be interpreted in different ways by different people. That said, the emphasized statement: "when the creature enters the area" it means of their own volition" I don't believe this is correct. If you read that Sage Advice about Moonbeam linked above:
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!
It's clearly stated there that it does not ned to be of the creature's own volition. This is a key difference in some cases, one of which is pointed out: you hurl an enemy into the spell's area with Thunderwave, Repelling Blast, etc. Interestingly, if you grapple an enemy that is already inside Spirit Guardians' area and drags them out and back into the spell's area, they'll take the damage. (This would obviously require someone else to have cast the spell since it moves with the caster) Similarly, this means that if you had a trap on the floor that would throw an enemy toward you, you could cast Spirit Guardians and activate the trap to inflict damage on your turn. If you instead ran forward causing the creature to be in the spell's area, it would not inflict damage.
So because you've moved them into the spell's effect, they take the damage at the beginning of their next turn. They don't take it immediately, as per pocketmouse's reply above.
No, if you move a target into the AoE, the target would take damage immediately. If they are forced to move into the AoE, then they are still moving into it. However, if the caster of Spirit Guardians moves next to the target, the target doesn't take damage because they aren't moving.
I find that to be an overly pedantic interpretation of "when the creature enters the area," plain English could go either way on it, and just checking "in the area?" vs. "in the area and moved there or in the area and area moved?" is a lot easier to juggle. I have no problem with an aura-caster running through a crowd to effect them with drive-by-damage, just as an enemy running through the area on its own turn would be subjected to drive-by-damage, it's hard to imagine what the in-game narrative difference between those two scenarios would be.
"Enter" has a pretty specific meaning, though. If something envelopes you without you moving, are you entering it? "Enter" is a verb; an action. You can be forced to take an action - being moved into the AoE, in this case - but if you take no action?
I find that to be an overly pedantic interpretation of "when the creature enters the area," plain English could go either way on it, and just checking "in the area?" vs. "in the area and moved there or in the area and area moved?" is a lot easier to juggle. I have no problem with an aura-caster running through a crowd to effect them with drive-by-damage, just as an enemy running through the area on its own turn would be subjected to drive-by-damage, it's hard to imagine what the in-game narrative difference between those two scenarios would be.
Plain English would not go either way. If the target hasn't moved, they haven't moved into the area. They haven't moved, or entered, anything at all.
Not only is it wrong by RAW, and plain English readings, but it cause some really unbalanced results for some effects in the game if you rule it the other direction.
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.
"Enters" includes synonyms/definitions such as "is admitted to", "comes into", "penetrates", and "is inserted." I am not saying that there are no definitions/uses of "enters" that imply that the enter-er has agency, but it is obviously wrong to pretend that all definitions/uses of "enters" imply that agency. The language can support the more open interpretation, and I find it more desirable to choose to interpret it that way, from both a verisimilitude perspective (passing through because you're moving or because the effect is moving takes about the same time and puts you through the effect to the same extent), an ease-of-play perspective (easier to check whether someone is in the area than to check if they're in the area and why), and a charity to players perspective (generally gives the player the full benefit of their spell in the way they choose to use it, rather than denying damage based on technical interpretations). I don't perceive any balance problems, though there certainly are interesting interactions, like providing characters with damaging auras an incentive to develop high mobility.
"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." - SAC 2020 - WOTC
FWIW, Spirit Guardians is listed as having the same timing as Moonbeam.
I'm failing to see the issue with imbalance. The enemy casters benefit from your same adjudication as the DM. Be consistent for every iteration of the spell, on both sides of the screen.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Agreed, there's no particular balance issue either way, consistency is the only real balance issue. Being permitted to move an AOE onto an enemy, vs. requiring enemies to be moved onto AOE's, doesn't really effect damage intensity (how much damage any given creature can expect to take over several rounds), but does effect damage spread (how many creatures on the battlefield can be expected to be caught by the AOE). More total damage on the field makes battles more snappy, and increasing damage spread lets the DM pack a battle with more enemies for more cinematic encounters, without really changing how quickly any given enemy can be brought down in a way that would lower their threat to the party. I think greater AOE spead is pretty much a net positive for most parties in most encounters, letting the party mop up chaff quicker without speeding up their takedown of the main threat.
I'm aware of the "design intent" statement in SAC, I just don't particularly care about it, intent is not RAW. When faced with two equally RAW interpretations, one of which is fun and makes battle more productive, and one of which matches "design intent," I know which I prefer.
Synonymous does not mean interchangeable. Those words/phrases are almost the same, but not the exact same. The word they chose to use was enter, which is a verb that requires action to be taken by the one doing the entering.
You can be forced to enter something, but something enveloping you is not you entering it.
Play how you will, but all I can picture if you allow this is a cleric disengaging with SG active and running around the battlefield massacring everything. Take a few levels of monk or even rogue for BA disengage, and/or take the mobility feat, and it would be monstrous.
Agreed, there's no particular balance issue either way, consistency is the only real balance issue. Being permitted to move an AOE onto an enemy, vs. requiring enemies to be moved onto AOE's, doesn't really effect damage intensity (how much damage any given creature can expect to take over several rounds), but does effect damage spread (how many creatures on the battlefield can be expected to be caught by the AOE). More total damage on the field makes battles more snappy, and increasing damage spread lets the DM pack a battle with more enemies for more cinematic encounters, without really changing how quickly any given enemy can be brought down in a way that would lower their threat to the party. I think greater AOE spead is pretty much a net positive for most parties in most encounters, letting the party mop up chaff quicker without speeding up their takedown of the main threat.
I'm aware of the "design intent" statement in SAC, I just don't particularly care about it, intent is not RAW. When faced with two equally RAW interpretations, one of which is fun and makes battle more productive, and one of which matches "design intent," I know which I prefer.
There are absolutely balance implications if you rule against the RAW, RAI, and SAC on this and go homebrewing it.
Namely, the number of targets you can affect goes up dramatically, and their ability to intentionally avoid these effects goes away. You could just move the effect wherever they move and keep hitting them (and as many targets as you want on the way). Moonbeam becomes a death laser just eradicating everything in a pretty significant area every turn.
Just compare. Moonbeam is a 5ft radius.Normally it can affect like 4 squares a round max. (Unless we get flying involved but for simplistic comparison sake, assume all ground targets) But if just clipping someone while moving the spell effect's area counted as them "entering" the area? You could death laser everything from its current start of turn location 60ft in a line all the way to where it comes to rest. That's 28 squares.
4 vs 28.
That is not a small change in balance.
Edit: Also just imagine the ridiculous strategies that develop from this, where a Spirit Guardian'd up cleric is using the dash action and speed boosts to simply run around the battlefield in a giant circle to affect hundreds of squares. That so silly.
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 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.
RAW I don’t see an invitation to check agency rather than spatial relation. I think that the moving laser beams/auras is fun, immersive, and desirable for combat flow, for the reasons I outlined. If other DMs want to interpret RAI differently, fine.
Agreed, there's no particular balance issue either way, consistency is the only real balance issue. Being permitted to move an AOE onto an enemy, vs. requiring enemies to be moved onto AOE's, doesn't really effect damage intensity (how much damage any given creature can expect to take over several rounds), but does effect damage spread (how many creatures on the battlefield can be expected to be caught by the AOE). More total damage on the field makes battles more snappy, and increasing damage spread lets the DM pack a battle with more enemies for more cinematic encounters, without really changing how quickly any given enemy can be brought down in a way that would lower their threat to the party. I think greater AOE spead is pretty much a net positive for most parties in most encounters, letting the party mop up chaff quicker without speeding up their takedown of the main threat.
I'm aware of the "design intent" statement in SAC, I just don't particularly care about it, intent is not RAW. When faced with two equally RAW interpretations, one of which is fun and makes battle more productive, and one of which matches "design intent," I know which I prefer.
There are absolutely balance implications if you rule against the RAW, RAI, and SAC on this and go homebrewing it.
Namely, the number of targets you can affect goes up dramatically, and their ability to intentionally avoid these effects goes away. You could just move the effect wherever they move and keep hitting them (and as many targets as you want on the way). Moonbeam becomes a death laser just eradicating everything in a pretty significant area every turn.
Just compare. Moonbeam is a 5ft radius.Normally it can affect like 4 squares a round max. (Unless we get flying involved but for simplistic comparison sake, assume all ground targets) But if just clipping someone while moving the spell effect's area counted as them "entering" the area? You could death laser everything from its current start of turn location 60ft in a line all the way to where it comes to rest. That's 28 squares.
4 vs 28.
That is not a small change in balance.
Edit: Also just imagine the ridiculous strategies that develop from this, where a Spirit Guardian'd up cleric is using the dash action and speed boosts to simply run around the battlefield in a giant circle to affect hundreds of squares. That so silly.
You're right pal. The other dudes are being obtuse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a cleric casts Spiritual Guardians and moves into an enemies space activating the "when the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn(that turn being the clerics turn)" does that creature takes damage on the clerics turn? Then, that same creature is next up on the initiative would it take damage again activating "starts its turn there"?
I believe so.
This is one of those tricky areas where the wording is unclear enough that it's been written up in the Sage Advice Compendium (search for 'moonbeam' to find the relevant section).
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
I think no damage would occur until the creatures start their turn in the AOE but, they would take a lot of damage on subsequent turns. Either that, or they would back off and the spell could protect the whole party from melee attacks.
I think when it says "when the creature enters the area" it means of their own volition - when they move themselves into the area. If you move the area onto them - they're not so much entering the area as being enveloped by it.
In the end - it's not very clear. So up to the DM.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
This makes the most sense. Similar to how forced movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
Hopefully this isn't "thread necroing", but I believe there is an important distinction here. (emphasis mine)
I agree with the statement that it's not very clear. RAI and RAW differ here for many, as the sentence can be interpreted in different ways by different people. That said, the emphasized statement: "when the creature enters the area" it means of their own volition" I don't believe this is correct. If you read that Sage Advice about Moonbeam linked above:
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!
It's clearly stated there that it does not ned to be of the creature's own volition. This is a key difference in some cases, one of which is pointed out: you hurl an enemy into the spell's area with Thunderwave, Repelling Blast, etc. Interestingly, if you grapple an enemy that is already inside Spirit Guardians' area and drags them out and back into the spell's area, they'll take the damage. (This would obviously require someone else to have cast the spell since it moves with the caster) Similarly, this means that if you had a trap on the floor that would throw an enemy toward you, you could cast Spirit Guardians and activate the trap to inflict damage on your turn. If you instead ran forward causing the creature to be in the spell's area, it would not inflict damage.
Check out my other brews:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/homebrew/subclasses?filter-author=Turk&filter-author-previous=Turk&filter-author-symbol=100003885
So because you've moved them into the spell's effect, they take the damage at the beginning of their next turn. They don't take it immediately, as per pocketmouse's reply above.
The creature has not "entered the area" they're already in the area. When you move the spell around you move the area the spell affects, but even if you change the area the spell affects to an area occupied by a creature, that creature hasn't "entered" the area this turn (again, because they're already in that area). So No. Moving the effect around doesn't trigger the "when a creature enters" effect.
If you moved the spell, then pushed a creature into this new spot? Then it would work. But already in the spot? No.
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.
No, if you move a target into the AoE, the target would take damage immediately. If they are forced to move into the AoE, then they are still moving into it. However, if the caster of Spirit Guardians moves next to the target, the target doesn't take damage because they aren't moving.
I find that to be an overly pedantic interpretation of "when the creature enters the area," plain English could go either way on it, and just checking "in the area?" vs. "in the area and moved there or in the area and area moved?" is a lot easier to juggle. I have no problem with an aura-caster running through a crowd to effect them with drive-by-damage, just as an enemy running through the area on its own turn would be subjected to drive-by-damage, it's hard to imagine what the in-game narrative difference between those two scenarios would be.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"Enter" has a pretty specific meaning, though. If something envelopes you without you moving, are you entering it? "Enter" is a verb; an action. You can be forced to take an action - being moved into the AoE, in this case - but if you take no action?
Plain English would not go either way. If the target hasn't moved, they haven't moved into the area. They haven't moved, or entered, anything at all.
Not only is it wrong by RAW, and plain English readings, but it cause some really unbalanced results for some effects in the game if you rule it the other direction.
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.
"Enters" includes synonyms/definitions such as "is admitted to", "comes into", "penetrates", and "is inserted." I am not saying that there are no definitions/uses of "enters" that imply that the enter-er has agency, but it is obviously wrong to pretend that all definitions/uses of "enters" imply that agency. The language can support the more open interpretation, and I find it more desirable to choose to interpret it that way, from both a verisimilitude perspective (passing through because you're moving or because the effect is moving takes about the same time and puts you through the effect to the same extent), an ease-of-play perspective (easier to check whether someone is in the area than to check if they're in the area and why), and a charity to players perspective (generally gives the player the full benefit of their spell in the way they choose to use it, rather than denying damage based on technical interpretations). I don't perceive any balance problems, though there certainly are interesting interactions, like providing characters with damaging auras an incentive to develop high mobility.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"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." - SAC 2020 - WOTC
FWIW, Spirit Guardians is listed as having the same timing as Moonbeam.
I'm failing to see the issue with imbalance. The enemy casters benefit from your same adjudication as the DM. Be consistent for every iteration of the spell, on both sides of the screen.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Agreed, there's no particular balance issue either way, consistency is the only real balance issue. Being permitted to move an AOE onto an enemy, vs. requiring enemies to be moved onto AOE's, doesn't really effect damage intensity (how much damage any given creature can expect to take over several rounds), but does effect damage spread (how many creatures on the battlefield can be expected to be caught by the AOE). More total damage on the field makes battles more snappy, and increasing damage spread lets the DM pack a battle with more enemies for more cinematic encounters, without really changing how quickly any given enemy can be brought down in a way that would lower their threat to the party. I think greater AOE spead is pretty much a net positive for most parties in most encounters, letting the party mop up chaff quicker without speeding up their takedown of the main threat.
I'm aware of the "design intent" statement in SAC, I just don't particularly care about it, intent is not RAW. When faced with two equally RAW interpretations, one of which is fun and makes battle more productive, and one of which matches "design intent," I know which I prefer.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Synonymous does not mean interchangeable. Those words/phrases are almost the same, but not the exact same. The word they chose to use was enter, which is a verb that requires action to be taken by the one doing the entering.
You can be forced to enter something, but something enveloping you is not you entering it.
Play how you will, but all I can picture if you allow this is a cleric disengaging with SG active and running around the battlefield massacring everything. Take a few levels of monk or even rogue for BA disengage, and/or take the mobility feat, and it would be monstrous.
There are absolutely balance implications if you rule against the RAW, RAI, and SAC on this and go homebrewing it.
Namely, the number of targets you can affect goes up dramatically, and their ability to intentionally avoid these effects goes away. You could just move the effect wherever they move and keep hitting them (and as many targets as you want on the way). Moonbeam becomes a death laser just eradicating everything in a pretty significant area every turn.
Just compare. Moonbeam is a 5ft radius.Normally it can affect like 4 squares a round max. (Unless we get flying involved but for simplistic comparison sake, assume all ground targets) But if just clipping someone while moving the spell effect's area counted as them "entering" the area? You could death laser everything from its current start of turn location 60ft in a line all the way to where it comes to rest. That's 28 squares.
4 vs 28.
That is not a small change in balance.
Edit: Also just imagine the ridiculous strategies that develop from this, where a Spirit Guardian'd up cleric is using the dash action and speed boosts to simply run around the battlefield in a giant circle to affect hundreds of squares. That so silly.
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 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.
RAW I don’t see an invitation to check agency rather than spatial relation. I think that the moving laser beams/auras is fun, immersive, and desirable for combat flow, for the reasons I outlined. If other DMs want to interpret RAI differently, fine.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You're right pal. The other dudes are being obtuse.