It does (almost) as much as Fireball per creature, but has a smaller area than Fireball, is not cast at range, requires concentration, and doesn't apply all its damage at once (meaning there are opportunities to avoid that damage by leaving the area before the start of your turn or causing the caster to lose concentration). I can't keep repeating myself to you any longer, since it's clear that "20 damage per creature the round you cast it?!?" is the start and end of what you're interested in looking at.
Balance it however you want, or choose your own RAI interpretation as you please.
Oh no no. RAW, RAI, and SAC all very clearly agree on this. Nothing leans to your interpretation whatsoever. People here have simply indulged you a bit of game balance discourse for your homebrew. But no, you're "interpretation" isn't RAI or rules as anything. That was settled ages ago.
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'll refer you to page 1 of this thread, which is me being consistently correct about the meaning of "enters," and you all conceding defeat on that front by turning to instead take up an argument about the effect of this ruling rather than the text giving rise to it :p
RAW the door is wide open either way you'd like to rule, the meat of this thread for the last 3 pages has been a debate over RAI/RAF application of the rule.
Average 20 (3d8 red and 3d8 blue Spirit Guardians),
Ok, so we're still assuming 50% save success rate.
over two different turns
Well, it's 10 per PC turn to all enemies and 10 per NPC turn per enemy, so yes, 20 per 2 turns to 1 enemy, 30 per 3 to 3 enemies, and so on. Unless you do something very wrong, SG should deal damage every turn of combat with your ruling, because no-one in the party can deal higher DPR than grappling the cleric and moving them. The DPR you can get out of a donkey with this ruling is incredible - mounts highly recommended.
of one round, in a 15 foot radius around the caster, taking up concentration, but can exempt allies vs. Average 21 (8d6),
20.875, under your assumptions.
all at once, in a 20 foot radius
Let's be clear. A 20 foot radius fireball is a 40 foot cube. A 15 foot radius SG is a 35 foot cube. The fireball is 14.29% (rounding) bigger, not 33% bigger.
delivered at 150 foot range, with no concentration, with friendly fire... one of those is usually better than the other, if we're in the business of weighing 3rd level spells against each other, but it isn't always (or even usually) SG.
It's always SG. 8d6 damage (20.875) right now to all enemies as opposed to 3d8 (10) right now to all enemies, then 3d8 (10) every turn to either all enemies or 1 enemy, is a terrible choice and you shouldn't make it.
Where you guys are getting your juice is by pretending that the Spirit Guardians will keep doing average 20 on future rounds "for free",
WAY more than 20 per round. Way, way more. 10 per turn, sometimes to all enemies and sometimes to one enemy. Everyone can cause red damage to the entire set of enemies, and the enemies cause blue damage on themselves.
while Fireball would need to keep getting cast with new slots. Screaming it loudly again for the folks in the cheap seats, in most realistic combat scenarios, you'll be doing 3d8+3d8 (average 20) to a clump in the first round that you approach them, but only 3d8 (average 10) to that clump in future rounds as you slog it out with them. Not. 20. Every. Turn.
If they're close enough for Fireball, they're close enough for SG spam.
Over multiple rounds, does Spirit Guardians do more than Fireball? Yeah, always has! Under y'all's ruling, usually it would take 2 rounds to match a fireball, and 4 rounds to double it. Under my ruling, it takes 1 round to match a fireball, and 3 rounds to double it.
Perhaps its the fact that I actually remember to ask players to make concentration saves (and volunteer to do them myself rather than needing to be asked), but if you're imagining a Spirit Guardians that's up for more than 2-4 rounds, you probably are in a different sort of fantasy than 5E is set in. I have witnessed many Spirit Guardians castings that drop before they do damage even a single time due to initiative shennanigans, a problem that my ruling solves elegantly.
I mean, incompetent casters are incompetent. Not much to be done there. You don't cast SG before a fight even starts and then not dodge.
You absolutely cannot do what you are saying everyone will always do.
A turn starts with the creature not in the area? Okay, go ahead and walk up to them to do a tick of average 10 "enters" damage. A turn starts with the creature already in the area? Doesn't matter if the area moves and then comes back, or the creatures moves and then comes back, or whatever crazy configuration you want to imagine... they're already in the area, and can't enter it for the first time again to trigger any "enters" damage. If its their turn, they'll take a tick of "start of turn" damage, that's it.
Nobody is going to form a congo line of pass-the-cleric to try to use them like a weapon. Doing so would require opposed grapple checks, which probably few of the party are equipped to reliably pass (remember, there's no rule permitting you to just volunteer to be grappled, or voluntarily fail checks in general). Even if one managed to grapple the cleric with their action, they could then move probably about 15 feet at most, since dragging a grappled creature costs double movement, or likely even less because they presumably moved up to the cleric to initiate. All of which would let them.... drag the cleric towards a new enemy that wasn't already in the bubble, to do a tick of 10 damage. "No one in the party can deal higher DPR than grappilng the cleric and".... dealing 10 damage to one or two new enemies? And "If they're close enough for Fireball, they're close enough for SG spam."?! So 150 feet (without needing to traverse difficult terrain or respect enemies blocking lanes) is the same as 30 feet of movement now? '
Spirit Guardians, under your ruling, does about 10 damage per turn to 2-4 enemies, on enemies' turns. Under my ruling, it does 10 more damage once, on the cleric's own turn. Or with a perfect setup, potentially the ability to do 10 more damage to 1-2 other enemies on the cleric's turn, using Disengage rather than Sacred Flame.
Just stahp, either way it's the same spell it's always been and is good in the situations it always has been.
How are there 4 pages on this? Isn’t it simple? “Enters” means the creature is moving (either by being forced or using its own movement), not the cleric/spell? Its that simple and all there is to it, right? Then the rest just follows.
A turn starts with the creature not in the area? Okay, go ahead and walk up to them to do a tick of average 10 "enters" damage.
This is how it works if a PC turn starts - either the cleric's turn (the cleric walks) or another PC's turn (the PC grapples the cleric and walks). NPC turn is the creature walks up to the cleric, potentially.
A turn starts with the creature already in the area? Doesn't matter if the area moves and then comes back, or the creatures moves and then comes back, or whatever crazy configuration you want to imagine... they're already in the area, and can't enter it for the first time again to trigger any "enters" damage. If its their turn, they'll take a tick of "start of turn" damage, that's it.
This is false. If you start in the area, exit the area, and then enter the area, you have entered the area, by all possible definitions of enter. The first time on any turn that this happens, you take damage, per the spell, unless you've already taken damage from starting your turn in the area. If the cleric's turn starts with the creature already in the area and the cleric steps back and then forward, the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn, by your definition of enter. There is no way to reconcile the definition you are using with the creature failing to take damage when the cleric steps back and then forward.
Sure there is! Re-entering a room you’ve already been in is not entering it for the first time :)
Yes it is. If you go to sleep in your bed at 11 pm, then wake up at 7 am, leave the bedroom and go to the bathroom, then return to your bedroom to get dressed, you enter your bedroom for the first time that day. Entering the bedroom is when you transition from not being in the bedroom to being in the bedroom. It is irrelevant if you've been in the bedroom in the past.
In common English, no, that would be very misleading if you told the police you entered your bedroom for the first time at 9 pm to find your dead wife…. When in reality you were in the bedroom with her until 10 am that morning :p
We’re not talking legalese, we’re trying to give words their common meanings. You enter something when you come into it, regardless of how you got there, as described on page 1. You enter something for the first time this X, when you haven’t already been in it this X. That’s how real people talk, when they aren’t just trying to win an internet argument.
I'll refer you to page 1 of this thread, which is me being consistently correct about the meaning of "enters," and you all conceding defeat on that front by turning to instead take up an argument about the effect of this ruling rather than the text giving rise to it :p
RAW the door is wide open either way you'd like to rule, the meat of this thread for the last 3 pages has been a debate over RAI/RAF application of the rule.
You've got good jokes.
If you present an 'argument' that outlandish, people aren't even going to argue against it. They'll think you misspoke, or were joking. No one is really going to go to great length arguing with you about something this black and white. And it's kind of dishonest to expect them to, and then when they don't then to claim that they have conceded an argument that they never conceded.
If you genuinely do not understand this then okay, let's dig in.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You absolutely cannot do what you are saying everyone will always do.
A turn starts with the creature not in the area? Okay, go ahead and walk up to them to do a tick of average 10 "enters" damage. A turn starts with the creature already in the area? Doesn't matter if the area moves and then comes back, or the creatures moves and then comes back, or whatever crazy configuration you want to imagine... they're already in the area, and can't enter it for the first time again to trigger any "enters" damage. If its their turn, they'll take a tick of "start of turn" damage, that's it.
Enters the area for the first time on a turn
That statement. Enters the area for the first time on a turn.
Enters the Area>
For the first time>
On a turn.
You don't seem to understand what it means. Genuinely, you've got it wrong. So listen up. Stop rebuttal-ing without actually listening to what people are telling you.
If someone starts in an area, leaves it, and comes back... When they come back, they are entering it for the first time that turn. Why? Because it is the first time they've entered it. They started in it, so that isn't entering it. They left it, that isn't entering it. Then they went back in... bingo, entering the area, and it is the first time, this turn, they're doing so. Triggers.
You can homebrew it differently if you want to but doing so has balance implications.
Disclaimer: The fact that I am discussing this instance of you being incorrect does not in any way indicate that I concede against other arguments in which you are also incorrect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Sure there is! Re-entering a room you’ve already been in is not entering it for the first time :)
It is though. When you apply the context of time intervals, absolutely it is the first time you're entering it... on a turn.
If you start in an area, you're not entering it. So you leave, that's not entering it. You haven't entered it yet, not on this turn... but, maybe you have a change of heart and reverse directions. Head back into the area...
That is the first time. On this turn. That you've entered it.
No, not the first time you've been inside it. But the first time you've entered it.
You're coming from an incorrect understanding and you've replaced words with ones you like better.
To get to your ruling it would need to read: when the creature enters is in the area for the first time on a turn
Disclaimer: The fact that I am discussing this instance of you being incorrect does not in any way indicate that I concede against other arguments in which you are also incorrect.
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.
Again, in all seriousness, “enters X for the first time in a Y”, the way that phrase is used in common English parlance, does not describe starting in Y during X, leaving Y, and then re-entering Y during X. The tongue-in cheek police report example in #73 is a good example of why that phrase is not used that way. You are describing “re-entering”, not “entering for the first time”
You guys dislike the result of my ruling, and think it isn’t RAI. That’s fine, and I do see your concerns and understand them, even if I don’t share them! Those are good arguments, and you are probably right about RAI!
But the RAW argument that “enters” requires agency ignores some equally common uses of the word, as when eating something causes it to enter your system, or when falling on a spike causes it to enter your body. I reject that argument.
And the argument that “enters for the first time” must include re-entering something you already are in… while it seems within the bounds of a dictionary definition of “enters,” it absolutely violates the meaning of that actual phrase as it is used by English speakers (vs. robots). It’s also NOT how DMs already interpret the spell, when creatures start their turn in the area and take damage, leave, and end up back in it on the same turn somehow… are you really arguing they would take “enters” damage the same character turn they took “start” damage? I wouldn’t!
Again, in all seriousness, “enters X for the first time in a Y”, the way that phrase is used in common English parlance, does not describe starting in Y during X, leaving Y, and then re-entering Y during X. The tongue-in cheek police report example in #73 is a good example of why that phrase is not used that way. You are describing “re-entering”, not “entering for the first time”
This is untrue.
"on the same turn" <-- You're ignoring this part of the rules text.
You guys dislike the result of my ruling, and think it isn’t RAI. That’s fine, and I do see your concerns and understand them, even if I don’t share them! Those are good arguments, and you are probably right about RAI!
Correct we are right on this.
But the RAW argument that “enters” requires agency ignores some equally common uses of the word, as when eating something causes it to enter your system, or when falling on a spike causes it to enter your body. I reject that argument.
No, this is untrue. No one is arguing that agency is required. This is a red herring.
The argument is that moving the spell's area of effect doesn't cause someone to enter it's area. Why? Because they are already in the area the spell now is affecting. They didn't enter this area of effect while the spell is affecting it, they're there already.
And the argument that “enters for the first time” must include re-entering something you already are in… while it seems within the bounds of a dictionary definition of “enters,” it absolutely violates the meaning of that actual phrase as it is used by English speakers (vs. robots). It’s also NOT how DMs already interpret the spell, when creatures start their turn in the area and take damage, leave, and end up back in it on the same turn somehow… are you really arguing they would take “enters” damage the same turn they took “start” damage? I wouldn’t!
Enters.
This is the third-person singular simple present indicative form of the verb "Enter".
What in that do we care about, specifically, in this argument? Right. The fact that it is a present tense. A present tense verb doesn't care about the past. That's a past tense verb. A present tense verb doesn't care about the future... again, that's a future tense verb.
Ours is a present tense verb and it only cares about what is happening "right now".
In our context, this word "enters" is being used as a conditional trigger. When it happens, something else is triggered to happen. Because of that, knowing the tense is important. Getting the tense wrong means you have mistimed the trigger. These tenses are time-specific.
So, we have a present tense trigger. If something happens "in the now" then an effect will go off. (That effect being the spell damage)
So... what was the full trigger?
Right.
"enters the area for the first time on a turn"
So. The first time they enter the area, on this turn, the effect goes off.
In the hypothetical case of them already starting their turn in the area, they take damage from the other "starts its turn there" trigger. (That's another BIG hint that the game rules know how to make this distinction, BTW) Our frame of reference now starts because we're looking for the reference "first time on a turn". The turn starts. At this point that have not "enters" the area yet "on this turn". Sure they entered it (past tense) on a different turn (not this one) but that isn't "enters he area on this turn". Obviously.
So, when they leave... they haven't "enters the area" yet this turn. They can do some jumping jacks or whatever action they want outside the area... cool, they haven't yet "enters the area" on this turn.
But if they come back into the area. They're entering the area. And, this is the first time they've done this on this turn. That is the "enters the area" AND "for the first time on a turn" triggers we were looking for! Spell effect goes off!
Disclaimer: The fact that I am discussing this instance of you being incorrect does not in any way indicate that I concede against other arguments in which you are also incorrect.
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.
Wait. Isn't there an 'or' in the spell? What is so hard about this spell? it is obvious what is intended. You don't take damage from the second option if you've already taken damage because of the first and vice versa.
It's a mixed bag in the PHB (and the English language in general) whether "or" means "or" or "and", but that's a good catch! I'd be totally on board with treating that as a "hard 'or' " to help close this concern by saying that on any given creature's turn, they can either take "starts in" or "enters" damage but not both!
Re: "goes into"... that's one meaning! "Bill enters (goes into) the cave!" But there's others:
"is admitted to": "Bill enters (is admitted to) the group chat after somebody tags him."
"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."
Right, we're talking about creatures in areas, not spikes or substances. But the original question was something like, "does a creature enter an area when it's drawn around them or moves over them, or only when they walk into it from outside of it"?
"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.
Well, they have corrected their terminology for newer spells. Healing spirit says “moves into” rather than “enters”. But considering the obvious definition (creatures entering implies creatures moving fairly plainly) and clarification provided by the designers, I don’t think there is a real functional question here, just one of…. Well… theory?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh no no. RAW, RAI, and SAC all very clearly agree on this. Nothing leans to your interpretation whatsoever. People here have simply indulged you a bit of game balance discourse for your homebrew. But no, you're "interpretation" isn't RAI or rules as anything. That was settled ages ago.
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 refer you to page 1 of this thread, which is me being consistently correct about the meaning of "enters," and you all conceding defeat on that front by turning to instead take up an argument about the effect of this ruling rather than the text giving rise to it :p
RAW the door is wide open either way you'd like to rule, the meat of this thread for the last 3 pages has been a debate over RAI/RAF application of the rule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If they're close enough for Fireball, they're close enough for SG spam.
I mean, incompetent casters are incompetent. Not much to be done there. You don't cast SG before a fight even starts and then not dodge.
You absolutely cannot do what you are saying everyone will always do.
A turn starts with the creature not in the area? Okay, go ahead and walk up to them to do a tick of average 10 "enters" damage. A turn starts with the creature already in the area? Doesn't matter if the area moves and then comes back, or the creatures moves and then comes back, or whatever crazy configuration you want to imagine... they're already in the area, and can't enter it for the first time again to trigger any "enters" damage. If its their turn, they'll take a tick of "start of turn" damage, that's it.
Nobody is going to form a congo line of pass-the-cleric to try to use them like a weapon. Doing so would require opposed grapple checks, which probably few of the party are equipped to reliably pass (remember, there's no rule permitting you to just volunteer to be grappled, or voluntarily fail checks in general). Even if one managed to grapple the cleric with their action, they could then move probably about 15 feet at most, since dragging a grappled creature costs double movement, or likely even less because they presumably moved up to the cleric to initiate. All of which would let them.... drag the cleric towards a new enemy that wasn't already in the bubble, to do a tick of 10 damage. "No one in the party can deal higher DPR than grappilng the cleric and".... dealing 10 damage to one or two new enemies? And "If they're close enough for Fireball, they're close enough for SG spam."?! So 150 feet (without needing to traverse difficult terrain or respect enemies blocking lanes) is the same as 30 feet of movement now? '
Spirit Guardians, under your ruling, does about 10 damage per turn to 2-4 enemies, on enemies' turns. Under my ruling, it does 10 more damage once, on the cleric's own turn. Or with a perfect setup, potentially the ability to do 10 more damage to 1-2 other enemies on the cleric's turn, using Disengage rather than Sacred Flame.
Just stahp, either way it's the same spell it's always been and is good in the situations it always has been.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
How are there 4 pages on this? Isn’t it simple? “Enters” means the creature is moving (either by being forced or using its own movement), not the cleric/spell? Its that simple and all there is to it, right? Then the rest just follows.
Welcome to the thread! That’s not what “enters” means in common English, which is why that’s not the stopping point. See page 1 :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This is false. If you start in the area, exit the area, and then enter the area, you have entered the area, by all possible definitions of enter. The first time on any turn that this happens, you take damage, per the spell, unless you've already taken damage from starting your turn in the area. If the cleric's turn starts with the creature already in the area and the cleric steps back and then forward, the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn, by your definition of enter. There is no way to reconcile the definition you are using with the creature failing to take damage when the cleric steps back and then forward.
Sure there is! Re-entering a room you’ve already been in is not entering it for the first time :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yes it is. If you go to sleep in your bed at 11 pm, then wake up at 7 am, leave the bedroom and go to the bathroom, then return to your bedroom to get dressed, you enter your bedroom for the first time that day. Entering the bedroom is when you transition from not being in the bedroom to being in the bedroom. It is irrelevant if you've been in the bedroom in the past.
In common English, no, that would be very misleading if you told the police you entered your bedroom for the first time at 9 pm to find your dead wife…. When in reality you were in the bedroom with her until 10 am that morning :p
We’re not talking legalese, we’re trying to give words their common meanings. You enter something when you come into it, regardless of how you got there, as described on page 1. You enter something for the first time this X, when you haven’t already been in it this X. That’s how real people talk, when they aren’t just trying to win an internet argument.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You've got good jokes.
If you present an 'argument' that outlandish, people aren't even going to argue against it. They'll think you misspoke, or were joking. No one is really going to go to great length arguing with you about something this black and white. And it's kind of dishonest to expect them to, and then when they don't then to claim that they have conceded an argument that they never conceded.
If you genuinely do not understand this then okay, let's dig in.
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 the area for the first time on a turn
That statement. Enters the area for the first time on a turn.
Enters the Area>
For the first time>
On a turn.
You don't seem to understand what it means. Genuinely, you've got it wrong. So listen up. Stop rebuttal-ing without actually listening to what people are telling you.
If someone starts in an area, leaves it, and comes back... When they come back, they are entering it for the first time that turn. Why? Because it is the first time they've entered it. They started in it, so that isn't entering it. They left it, that isn't entering it. Then they went back in... bingo, entering the area, and it is the first time, this turn, they're doing so. Triggers.
You can homebrew it differently if you want to but doing so has balance implications.
Disclaimer: The fact that I am discussing this instance of you being incorrect does not in any way indicate that I concede against other arguments in which you are also incorrect.
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 is though. When you apply the context of time intervals, absolutely it is the first time you're entering it... on a turn.
If you start in an area, you're not entering it. So you leave, that's not entering it. You haven't entered it yet, not on this turn... but, maybe you have a change of heart and reverse directions. Head back into the area...
That is the first time. On this turn. That you've entered it.
No, not the first time you've been inside it. But the first time you've entered it.
You're coming from an incorrect understanding and you've replaced words with ones you like better.
To get to your ruling it would need to read: when the creature
entersis in the area for the first time on a turnDisclaimer: The fact that I am discussing this instance of you being incorrect does not in any way indicate that I concede against other arguments in which you are also incorrect.
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.
Again, in all seriousness, “enters X for the first time in a Y”, the way that phrase is used in common English parlance, does not describe starting in Y during X, leaving Y, and then re-entering Y during X. The tongue-in cheek police report example in #73 is a good example of why that phrase is not used that way. You are describing “re-entering”, not “entering for the first time”
You guys dislike the result of my ruling, and think it isn’t RAI. That’s fine, and I do see your concerns and understand them, even if I don’t share them! Those are good arguments, and you are probably right about RAI!
But the RAW argument that “enters” requires agency ignores some equally common uses of the word, as when eating something causes it to enter your system, or when falling on a spike causes it to enter your body. I reject that argument.
And the argument that “enters for the first time” must include re-entering something you already are in… while it seems within the bounds of a dictionary definition of “enters,” it absolutely violates the meaning of that actual phrase as it is used by English speakers (vs. robots). It’s also NOT how DMs already interpret the spell, when creatures start their turn in the area and take damage, leave, and end up back in it on the same turn somehow… are you really arguing they would take “enters” damage the same character turn they took “start” damage? I wouldn’t!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This is untrue.
"on the same turn" <-- You're ignoring this part of the rules text.
Correct we are right on this.
No, this is untrue. No one is arguing that agency is required. This is a red herring.
The argument is that moving the spell's area of effect doesn't cause someone to enter it's area. Why? Because they are already in the area the spell now is affecting. They didn't enter this area of effect while the spell is affecting it, they're there already.
Enters.
This is the third-person singular simple present indicative form of the verb "Enter".
What in that do we care about, specifically, in this argument? Right. The fact that it is a present tense. A present tense verb doesn't care about the past. That's a past tense verb. A present tense verb doesn't care about the future... again, that's a future tense verb.
Ours is a present tense verb and it only cares about what is happening "right now".
In our context, this word "enters" is being used as a conditional trigger. When it happens, something else is triggered to happen. Because of that, knowing the tense is important. Getting the tense wrong means you have mistimed the trigger. These tenses are time-specific.
So, we have a present tense trigger. If something happens "in the now" then an effect will go off. (That effect being the spell damage)
So... what was the full trigger?
Right.
"enters the area for the first time on a turn"
So. The first time they enter the area, on this turn, the effect goes off.
In the hypothetical case of them already starting their turn in the area, they take damage from the other "starts its turn there" trigger. (That's another BIG hint that the game rules know how to make this distinction, BTW) Our frame of reference now starts because we're looking for the reference "first time on a turn". The turn starts. At this point that have not "enters" the area yet "on this turn". Sure they entered it (past tense) on a different turn (not this one) but that isn't "enters he area on this turn". Obviously.
So, when they leave... they haven't "enters the area" yet this turn. They can do some jumping jacks or whatever action they want outside the area... cool, they haven't yet "enters the area" on this turn.
But if they come back into the area. They're entering the area. And, this is the first time they've done this on this turn. That is the "enters the area" AND "for the first time on a turn" triggers we were looking for! Spell effect goes off!
Disclaimer: The fact that I am discussing this instance of you being incorrect does not in any way indicate that I concede against other arguments in which you are also incorrect.
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.
Wait. Isn't there an 'or' in the spell? What is so hard about this spell? it is obvious what is intended. You don't take damage from the second option if you've already taken damage because of the first and vice versa.
It isn't? It doesn't mean "goes into"? Fish. I guess this is complicated.
It's a mixed bag in the PHB (and the English language in general) whether "or" means "or" or "and", but that's a good catch! I'd be totally on board with treating that as a "hard 'or' " to help close this concern by saying that on any given creature's turn, they can either take "starts in" or "enters" damage but not both!
Re: "goes into"... that's one meaning! "Bill enters (goes into) the cave!" But there's others:
Etc.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ok. But from context of the spell, we're talking about creatures entering an area. How is "goes into" not the best choice for that case?
Right, we're talking about creatures in areas, not spikes or substances. But the original question was something like, "does a creature enter an area when it's drawn around them or moves over them, or only when they walk into it from outside of it"?
"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.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Well, they have corrected their terminology for newer spells. Healing spirit says “moves into” rather than “enters”. But considering the obvious definition (creatures entering implies creatures moving fairly plainly) and clarification provided by the designers, I don’t think there is a real functional question here, just one of…. Well… theory?