Yes but why? How do you know if someone is entering or if they're not entering while somehow now being in it?
If the PAM guy walks up to you, you're for sure now in his reach area, right? When did you enter it?
You're saying you weren't in his reach but then now are, but never entered it?
Why? Because you know when it's the creature that enter in X or when it's X that makes you part of it now.
When a PAM walk up to a creature, the creature itself did not enter its reach. It's the same reasoning on why most AoE that require a creature to enter in it don't affect a creature the AoE is created on or moved onto. Because it itself did not enter in it. Its all directional ☺
Doesn't make it any less relevant now. Or was there some masterful counter argument?
The "masterful counter argument" is that debates over the meaning of 'enter' in regards to teleportation are irrelevant to opportunity attacks because opportunity attacks specifically exempt teleportation.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Fish. I still was under the assumption that we were talking about rules.
1. Remember OAs have their own rules (such as excluding teleportation and all forced movement), and creatures entering areas (as shown in black and white) is distinct from areas entering creatures spaces (entering is one way). Combine these and your non sequitur fail.
2. You haven't proved that entering requires movement other than asserting it. It is a TERRIBLE assertion. On this point again you are wrong. Entering does not require movement in English or in the rules. Again, I have proved it by showing the lack of evidence of a rule or English definition requiring movement, especially a mechanically defined movement mode other than teleportation, to be used to "enter" an area.
I really dislike thedisingenuous argumentationwhere I have to start at square 1 every time I make a statement because you seemingly forget all the relevant rules and points in the meantime. I think I'm done here.
It isn't.
I've represented my point of view pretty genuinely. I've stated it time and time again, despite repeatedly being misrepresented.
Anywho:
1. I have no idea what you mean when you say "entering is one way" that seems like an assertion without citation. I say Entering requires movement. You say entering is one way. Unless that's the same thing. No? What else could you possibly mean? One way... movement.
2. "Again, I have proved it by showing the lack of evidence of a rule or English definition requiring movement," What? No one has proven this or anything like it. Merriam-Websters----> "Enters" definition: To go in. "Go" definition: to move on a course.
Done and done. Enters means "To [move on a course] in."
That's all she wrote.
Entering is one way. An area and a creature exist, and are located within a stationary frame of reference. If the area stays stationary and the creature goes from being outside the area to being inside the area, then the creature has entered the area. If the creature remains stationary outside the area and the area moves within the frame of reference and then starts to cover the creature, then the creature *has not entered* the area. The area has enveloped the creature. That is how the verb "to enter" is one way. That's how English works. And that is why a PAM moving towards an enemy doesn't trigger their own OA.
Then your logic chain evidence of the definition of Enter means go > go means move > move means use speed and not teleport > therefore teleport does not enter; it is just not logically or linguistically sound. Nothing about the the word enter excludes teleportation. It just doesn't. It is literally only you who is asserting that this is true, and your supporting evidence is flimsy beyond belief.
If you teleport from outside to inside, you have entered.
Nothing about the word enter there is logistically sound, only due to the pedantic insistence that words only have one meaning. Or that the English language is designed to handle situations like teleportation.
You can repeat the definition you are using all you want. That is evidence it might be valid but does not give any better evidence than that of anyone else that it is valid.
What definition are you using? The definition I'm using here is literally what the rules use. They make a distinction between a creature going into an area, vs an area moving to cover a creature - see Whirlwind for both of those concepts written right next to eachother. And in order to work out which has moved (area or creature) you need a frame of reference. In this game, that is usually the map or grid.
Words do not (often) have only one meaning. But the full context of the sentence and the wider situation should help you identify the true intended meaning. The text in whirlwind is one of many signs that enter is used in this "one way" manner in these rules - and does not include an area moving over a creature. And the specific calling out of teleportation not triggering an OA is a sign that teleportation does otherwise count as entering an area (because otherwise it isn't be mentioned there). If you have some rule context that suggests a different definition of "to enter" then you can provide it. Rav has repeatedly asserted his definition of enter to exclude teleportation, but this is actively unsupported by the rules context of OAs.
To time warp back three pages, I acknowledge “movement using your movement pool” is a weird awkward non-written phrase. What I’m getting at is, the Movement section of Chapter 9, which it calls “your move”. It describes, that on your turn, you may move one or more times in distances which total your speed, without spending actions. That is “your move.” Some actions, like Dash, increase the amount of distance “your move” can cover, but still allow it to be a divisible pool of total distance for one or more movements.
The list of Action, Bonus Action, and Reaction movements I posted, even the ones referencing your speed value, do not work that way. They provide a single discrete movement, which does not care how much or little movement you’ve already taken on your tirn, and which do not allow unspent distance from that action to be shared into that pool for other later movements.
They are movement, which is not normal “your move” movement. 5E doesn’t have a good label for them, other than “actions that grant movement,” which does a poor job distinguishing them from the very-different Dash. Rav’s earlier posts seemed to indicate that they did not believe such actions should count as “movement “ or that they at least don’t trigger OAs unless specified otherwise. Apparently they do not hold that position after all, though subsequent posts have seemed to bring it back up a couple times, so I’m not sure.
Theres’s movement with “your move” on your turn. There’s movement on your turn using an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. There’s movement on another’s turn using a Reaction. There’s movement on your turn, or another’s turn using no action (infestation, falling, being pushed, etc).
The interesting discussion about whether Teleportation is always one of these types of movement + an extra tag for being teleportation, vs. being non-movement that is just teleportation “placing you” elsewhere or something… it’s a shame that this thread doesn’t seem to have room for that conversation, with all the other noise.
I really dislike the disingenuous argumentation where I have to start at square 1 every time I make a statement because you seemingly forget all the relevant rules and points in the meantime. I think I'm done here.
Again, this is at best disingenuous argumentation at this point. And no matter what the problem is, it isn't worth trying to correct you.
Okay good, a concrete example we can work with. Since whirlwind is your conclusive proof that an area can enter a creature's space. When, precisely, can it do that?
If you answer: When it moves.
You're correct. Which is exactly my whole point.
The example you are using to prove "enters" doesn't mean "moves into" can only enter when it moves...
Edit: AND. It makes the distinction between entering the space vs first appearing. <--- Remember this word, that's what teleport says it does. Causes you to appear somewhere.
Whirlwind shows that entering from moving vs simply appearing are two different things because it needed to spell both these out as separate triggers. When the whirlwind appears it triggers. When the whirlwind moves (and thus enters spaces) it triggers. Your example proves that we treat these game terms exactly like I say we do.
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.
FWIW i bring this Sage Advice here if it can help clear the debate of entering AoE:
"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."
I'll tongue-in-cheek point out... if spell effects can "move," that is one more proof that "movement" in 5E is a larger concept which extends beyond (1) the movement that a character can perform using "your move" on their turn, or (2) other Actions, Bonus Actions, or Reactions granting movement on their or another's turn, or (3) non-action "forced movement" like falling or pushing. If a spell can "move" when it changes locations, why isn't magical teleportation considered a "move" when it causes you to change locations as well?
So Captain Picard doesn’t enter the enterprise unless he takes a shuttle? O’Brien beams him up and he hasn’t entered the ship? He’s then not in the enterprise?
Fish. I still was under the assumption that we were talking about rules.
1. Remember OAs have their own rules (such as excluding teleportation and all forced movement), and creatures entering areas (as shown in black and white) is distinct from areas entering creatures spaces (entering is one way). Combine these and your non sequitur fail.
2. You haven't proved that entering requires movement other than asserting it. It is a TERRIBLE assertion. On this point again you are wrong. Entering does not require movement in English or in the rules. Again, I have proved it by showing the lack of evidence of a rule or English definition requiring movement, especially a mechanically defined movement mode other than teleportation, to be used to "enter" an area.
I really dislike thedisingenuous argumentationwhere I have to start at square 1 every time I make a statement because you seemingly forget all the relevant rules and points in the meantime. I think I'm done here.
It isn't.
I've represented my point of view pretty genuinely. I've stated it time and time again, despite repeatedly being misrepresented.
Anywho:
1. I have no idea what you mean when you say "entering is one way" that seems like an assertion without citation. I say Entering requires movement. You say entering is one way. Unless that's the same thing. No? What else could you possibly mean? One way... movement.
2. "Again, I have proved it by showing the lack of evidence of a rule or English definition requiring movement," What? No one has proven this or anything like it. Merriam-Websters----> "Enters" definition: To go in. "Go" definition: to move on a course.
Done and done. Enters means "To [move on a course] in."
That's all she wrote.
Entering is one way. An area and a creature exist, and are located within a stationary frame of reference. If the area stays stationary and the creature goes from being outside the area to being inside the area, then the creature has entered the area. If the creature remains stationary outside the area and the area moves within the frame of reference and then starts to cover the creature, then the creature *has not entered* the area. The area has enveloped the creature. That is how the verb "to enter" is one way. That's how English works. And that is why a PAM moving towards an enemy doesn't trigger their own OA.
I agree, it is one way because I think "enters" means "move into".
The question was how you could believe "enters" means "not-move into" while also thinking it is one way. Because I keep getting told "enters" doesn't mean "move into" when that's clearly what it means. Plain English (in my quote above) "enters" means to move into, plenty of examples in game text. Even here, you describe it the same way actually. Entering = moving into.
Then your logic chain evidence of the definition of Enter means go > go means move > move means use speed and not teleport > therefore teleport does not enter; it is just not logically or linguistically sound. Nothing about the the word enter excludes teleportation.
So, really, there are 2 points being talked about and you're not making the distinction between them here.
There is does Enter = Moves Into. Which it does.
There is the issue of is teleportation movement? Which it isn't.
But it is logically sound. If it wasn't point to the flaw or gap in logic. A sweeping "Ur wrong" isn't going to prove there is a logical fallacy or gap going on. Point to it if you think there is one.
Could I be wrong, generally? of course, yeah, if I have accepted some bit of information as true that isn't, that would taint my entire argument. But if I have some bad definition for something, or if I have misread a rule somewhere, then that should be easy enough to point to and clear up.
No one has done this.
It is literally only you who is asserting that this is true, and your supporting evidence is flimsy beyond belief.
Appeals to majority (bandwagon fallacy).
If you teleport from outside to inside, you have entered.
Incorrect, but I see why you think so.
Teleportation isn't any kind of movement. It causes you to "appear". <--- That isn't a movement word.
Just read the books they'll tell you what you need. I know you can argue and argue without actually consulting the text and just reassert your position repeatedly. That's grand and all but just a quick gander at the rules really can help.
We can pull the quote for you? If you won't go to the rules, we'll bring the rules to you!
You and your group (or the target object) appear where you want to.
Appear. Teleportation's effect is you appearing.
Absent entirely from the effects of the spell? Anything about moving whatsoever. Just appearing?
Is appearing different from moving? Great question! Let's look at this thread's star player, the Whirlwind spell again:
Until the spell ends, you can use your action to move the whirlwind up to 30 feet in any direction along the ground. The whirlwind sucks up any Medium or smaller objects that aren’t secured to anything and that aren’t worn or carried by anyone.
A creature must make a Dexterity saving throw the first time on a turn that it enters the whirlwind or that the whirlwind enters its space, including when the whirlwind first appears.
3 possible distinct triggers here.
You enter it. It enters you. It appears.
Here this spell makes the distinction between it moving (thus entering) into your space vs it simply appearing there.
It wouldn't need to say this if entering a space and appearing in a space were the same thing.
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 wouldn't need to say this if entering a space and appearing in a space were the same thing.
We have a clearly stated case where teleportation is 'entering' a space: Magic Circle.
The creature can’t willingly enter the cylinder by nonmagical means. If the creature tries to use teleportation or interplanar travel to do so, it must first succeed on a Charisma saving throw.
So Captain Picard doesn’t enter the enterprise unless he takes a shuttle? O’Brien beams him up and he hasn’t entered the ship? He’s then not in the enterprise?
This is more true than you think in Star Trek. When you get beamed on board you get built from scratch in place. Atom by atom built from energy.
They even have some dialog on the show that discusses the existential implications here. Are they even the same person after getting beamed? All sorts of mishaps involving beaming incidents really get into this notion too. People getting copied. People getting combined. It's the wild west of existential discovering on the topic and notion of identity.
So. Yes. The Picard that is on the ship after getting beamed didn't enter the ship, he was very literally already there, just not yet made physical in place. Just abstract nebulous 'energy" within the ship.
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.
So when Picard beams off of the ship, he doesn’t need to leave Riker in charge as the commanding officer because he never leaves the ship. Neat.
Well, at least in terms of 5E mechanics, others have shown that your understanding doesn’t fit with common English or the RAW. So there is at least that.
Teleportation is a form of movement that breaks the normal rules of movement. i.e. you are never "entering" or "leaving" the range of a creature/character, but just suddenly appear in that space. Therefore doesn't allow for an OA, since you are already there, with no trigger of entering or leaving the space.
FWIW i bring this Sage Advice here if it can help clear the debate of entering AoE:
"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."
So to enter you need to "pass into". Teleport for sure doesn't do that.
That sounds like "Moving into". Just in case anyone here doesn't have it in their vocabulary... What's ye ol' dictionary define "pass" as?
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 mean, in common English you do. You pass the boundary of the effect and go from “out of” to “into.” You can say that you haven’t but that is just, like, your opinion, man.
Teleportation is a form of movement that breaks the normal rules of movement. i.e. you are never "entering" or "leaving" the range of a creature/character, but just suddenly appear in that space. Therefore doesn't allow for an OA, since you are already there, with no trigger of entering or leaving the space.
More like;
Teleportation is a form of movement that breaks the normal rules of movement. While you are still "entering" or "leaving" spaces or area of effect by (dis)appearing), it doesn't provoke OA, since the rules specifically say so.
Entering is one way. An area and a creature exist, and are located within a stationary frame of reference. If the area stays stationary and the creature goes from being outside the area to being inside the area, then the creature has entered the area. If the creature remains stationary outside the area and the area moves within the frame of reference and then starts to cover the creature, then the creature *has not entered* the area. The area has enveloped the creature. That is how the verb "to enter" is one way. That's how English works. And that is why a PAM moving towards an enemy doesn't trigger their own OA.
I agree, it is one way because I think "enters" means "move into".
The question was how you could believe "enters" means "not-move into" while also thinking it is one way. Because I keep getting told "enters" doesn't mean "move into" when that's clearly what it means. Plain English (in my quote above) "enters" means to move into, plenty of examples in game text. Even here, you describe it the same way actually. Entering = moving into.
Then your logic chain evidence of the definition of Enter means go > go means move > move means use speed and not teleport > therefore teleport does not enter; it is just not logically or linguistically sound. Nothing about the the word enter excludes teleportation.
So, really, there are 2 points being talked about and you're not making the distinction between them here.
There is does Enter = Moves Into. Which it does.
There is the issue of is teleportation movement? Which it isn't.
But it is logically sound. If it wasn't point to the flaw or gap in logic. A sweeping "Ur wrong" isn't going to prove there is a logical fallacy or gap going on. Point to it if you think there is one.
Could I be wrong, generally? of course, yeah, if I have accepted some bit of information as true that isn't, that would taint my entire argument. But if I have some bad definition for something, or if I have misread a rule somewhere, then that should be easy enough to point to and clear up.
No one has done this.
It is literally only you who is asserting that this is true, and your supporting evidence is flimsy beyond belief.
Appeals to majority (bandwagon fallacy).
If you teleport from outside to inside, you have entered.
Incorrect, but I see why you think so.
Teleportation isn't any kind of movement. It causes you to "appear". <--- That isn't a movement word.
Just read the books they'll tell you what you need. I know you can argue and argue without actually consulting the text and just reassert your position repeatedly. That's grand and all but just a quick gander at the rules really can help.
We can pull the quote for you? If you won't go to the rules, we'll bring the rules to you!
You and your group (or the target object) appear where you want to.
Appear. Teleportation's effect is you appearing.
Absent entirely from the effects of the spell? Anything about moving whatsoever. Just appearing?
Is appearing different from moving? Great question! Let's look at this thread's star player, the Whirlwind spell again:
Until the spell ends, you can use your action to move the whirlwind up to 30 feet in any direction along the ground. The whirlwind sucks up any Medium or smaller objects that aren’t secured to anything and that aren’t worn or carried by anyone.
A creature must make a Dexterity saving throw the first time on a turn that it enters the whirlwind or that the whirlwind enters its space, including when the whirlwind first appears.
3 possible distinct triggers here.
You enter it. It enters you. It appears.
Here this spell makes the distinction between it moving (thus entering) into your space vs it simply appearing there.
It wouldn't need to say this if entering a space and appearing in a space were the same thing.
Teleportation does not just make you appear somewhere, it makes you disappear from one place and appear somewhere else, thereby moving you from one place to another instantly. This is a very different concept to the "when it first appears" statement in whirlwind. When something first appears from nowhere it is being created. If you create something inside an area then that thing has not entered the area. Entering requires two things: being outside the area, then at a time after that being inside the area. If you do not exist outside, you cannot enter.
You keep saying Entering requires movement - plucked from an abridged Websters dictionary, then applying a very restrictive (which is to say incorrect) meaning of movement from the rulebooks, then combining it with an assertion that teleportation is not movement which also does not come from the rulebooks beyond deciding that the word "appear" is some sort of anti-moving talisman.
You are not being told that entering doesn't require movement; you are being told that entering doesn't require movement in the specific way you choose to define it. Entering requires a change of location from outside to inside. Moving by walking inside is one such change of location. Teleportation is another.
The rules for OAs specifically call out teleportation and forced movement (like falling) as not triggering an OA. This is a strong indicator that teleporting out of reach would indeed be considered moving out of that reach and would trigger the OA without this added clause.
Why? Because you know when it's the creature that enter in X or when it's X that makes you part of it now.
When a PAM walk up to a creature, the creature itself did not enter its reach. It's the same reasoning on why most AoE that require a creature to enter in it don't affect a creature the AoE is created on or moved onto. Because it itself did not enter in it. Its all directional ☺
The "masterful counter argument" is that debates over the meaning of 'enter' in regards to teleportation are irrelevant to opportunity attacks because opportunity attacks specifically exempt teleportation.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Entering is one way. An area and a creature exist, and are located within a stationary frame of reference. If the area stays stationary and the creature goes from being outside the area to being inside the area, then the creature has entered the area. If the creature remains stationary outside the area and the area moves within the frame of reference and then starts to cover the creature, then the creature *has not entered* the area. The area has enveloped the creature. That is how the verb "to enter" is one way. That's how English works. And that is why a PAM moving towards an enemy doesn't trigger their own OA.
Then your logic chain evidence of the definition of Enter means go > go means move > move means use speed and not teleport > therefore teleport does not enter; it is just not logically or linguistically sound. Nothing about the the word enter excludes teleportation. It just doesn't. It is literally only you who is asserting that this is true, and your supporting evidence is flimsy beyond belief.
If you teleport from outside to inside, you have entered.
What definition are you using? The definition I'm using here is literally what the rules use. They make a distinction between a creature going into an area, vs an area moving to cover a creature - see Whirlwind for both of those concepts written right next to eachother. And in order to work out which has moved (area or creature) you need a frame of reference. In this game, that is usually the map or grid.
Words do not (often) have only one meaning. But the full context of the sentence and the wider situation should help you identify the true intended meaning. The text in whirlwind is one of many signs that enter is used in this "one way" manner in these rules - and does not include an area moving over a creature. And the specific calling out of teleportation not triggering an OA is a sign that teleportation does otherwise count as entering an area (because otherwise it isn't be mentioned there). If you have some rule context that suggests a different definition of "to enter" then you can provide it. Rav has repeatedly asserted his definition of enter to exclude teleportation, but this is actively unsupported by the rules context of OAs.
This thread has juice, wild :)
To time warp back three pages, I acknowledge “movement using your movement pool” is a weird awkward non-written phrase. What I’m getting at is, the Movement section of Chapter 9, which it calls “your move”. It describes, that on your turn, you may move one or more times in distances which total your speed, without spending actions. That is “your move.” Some actions, like Dash, increase the amount of distance “your move” can cover, but still allow it to be a divisible pool of total distance for one or more movements.
The list of Action, Bonus Action, and Reaction movements I posted, even the ones referencing your speed value, do not work that way. They provide a single discrete movement, which does not care how much or little movement you’ve already taken on your tirn, and which do not allow unspent distance from that action to be shared into that pool for other later movements.
They are movement, which is not normal “your move” movement. 5E doesn’t have a good label for them, other than “actions that grant movement,” which does a poor job distinguishing them from the very-different Dash. Rav’s earlier posts seemed to indicate that they did not believe such actions should count as “movement “ or that they at least don’t trigger OAs unless specified otherwise. Apparently they do not hold that position after all, though subsequent posts have seemed to bring it back up a couple times, so I’m not sure.
Theres’s movement with “your move” on your turn. There’s movement on your turn using an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. There’s movement on another’s turn using a Reaction. There’s movement on your turn, or another’s turn using no action (infestation, falling, being pushed, etc).
The interesting discussion about whether Teleportation is always one of these types of movement + an extra tag for being teleportation, vs. being non-movement that is just teleportation “placing you” elsewhere or something… it’s a shame that this thread doesn’t seem to have room for that conversation, with all the other noise.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Okay good, a concrete example we can work with. Since whirlwind is your conclusive proof that an area can enter a creature's space. When, precisely, can it do that?
If you answer: When it moves.
You're correct. Which is exactly my whole point.
The example you are using to prove "enters" doesn't mean "moves into" can only enter when it moves...
Edit: AND. It makes the distinction between entering the space vs first appearing. <--- Remember this word, that's what teleport says it does. Causes you to appear somewhere.
Whirlwind shows that entering from moving vs simply appearing are two different things because it needed to spell both these out as separate triggers. When the whirlwind appears it triggers. When the whirlwind moves (and thus enters spaces) it triggers. Your example proves that we treat these game terms exactly like I say we do.
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.
FWIW i bring this Sage Advice here if it can help clear the debate of entering AoE:
"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."
I'll tongue-in-cheek point out... if spell effects can "move," that is one more proof that "movement" in 5E is a larger concept which extends beyond (1) the movement that a character can perform using "your move" on their turn, or (2) other Actions, Bonus Actions, or Reactions granting movement on their or another's turn, or (3) non-action "forced movement" like falling or pushing. If a spell can "move" when it changes locations, why isn't magical teleportation considered a "move" when it causes you to change locations as well?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So Captain Picard doesn’t enter the enterprise unless he takes a shuttle? O’Brien beams him up and he hasn’t entered the ship? He’s then not in the enterprise?
I agree, it is one way because I think "enters" means "move into".
The question was how you could believe "enters" means "not-move into" while also thinking it is one way. Because I keep getting told "enters" doesn't mean "move into" when that's clearly what it means. Plain English (in my quote above) "enters" means to move into, plenty of examples in game text. Even here, you describe it the same way actually. Entering = moving into.
So, really, there are 2 points being talked about and you're not making the distinction between them here.
But it is logically sound. If it wasn't point to the flaw or gap in logic. A sweeping "Ur wrong" isn't going to prove there is a logical fallacy or gap going on. Point to it if you think there is one.
Could I be wrong, generally? of course, yeah, if I have accepted some bit of information as true that isn't, that would taint my entire argument. But if I have some bad definition for something, or if I have misread a rule somewhere, then that should be easy enough to point to and clear up.
No one has done this.
Appeals to majority (bandwagon fallacy).
Incorrect, but I see why you think so.
Teleportation isn't any kind of movement. It causes you to "appear". <--- That isn't a movement word.
Just read the books they'll tell you what you need. I know you can argue and argue without actually consulting the text and just reassert your position repeatedly. That's grand and all but just a quick gander at the rules really can help.
We can pull the quote for you? If you won't go to the rules, we'll bring the rules to you!
Appear. Teleportation's effect is you appearing.
Absent entirely from the effects of the spell? Anything about moving whatsoever. Just appearing?
Is appearing different from moving? Great question! Let's look at this thread's star player, the Whirlwind spell again:
3 possible distinct triggers here.
You enter it. It enters you. It appears.
Here this spell makes the distinction between it moving (thus entering) into your space vs it simply appearing there.
It wouldn't need to say this if entering a space and appearing in a space were the same thing.
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.
We have a clearly stated case where teleportation is 'entering' a space: Magic Circle.
FWIW i bring this Sage Advice here if it can help clear the debate of teleport is movement;
"You can’t move farther than 30 feet away from the caster of compelled duel by any means, including teleportation"
This is more true than you think in Star Trek. When you get beamed on board you get built from scratch in place. Atom by atom built from energy.
They even have some dialog on the show that discusses the existential implications here. Are they even the same person after getting beamed? All sorts of mishaps involving beaming incidents really get into this notion too. People getting copied. People getting combined. It's the wild west of existential discovering on the topic and notion of identity.
So. Yes. The Picard that is on the ship after getting beamed didn't enter the ship, he was very literally already there, just not yet made physical in place. Just abstract nebulous 'energy" within the ship.
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 when Picard beams off of the ship, he doesn’t need to leave Riker in charge as the commanding officer because he never leaves the ship. Neat.
Well, at least in terms of 5E mechanics, others have shown that your understanding doesn’t fit with common English or the RAW. So there is at least that.
So, would I be wrong to assume?
Teleportation is a form of movement that breaks the normal rules of movement. i.e. you are never "entering" or "leaving" the range of a creature/character, but just suddenly appear in that space. Therefore doesn't allow for an OA, since you are already there, with no trigger of entering or leaving the space.
So to enter you need to "pass into". Teleport for sure doesn't do that.
That sounds like "Moving into". Just in case anyone here doesn't have it in their vocabulary... What's ye ol' dictionary define "pass" as?
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 mean, in common English you do. You pass the boundary of the effect and go from “out of” to “into.” You can say that you haven’t but that is just, like, your opinion, man.
More like;
Teleportation is a form of movement that breaks the normal rules of movement. While you are still "entering" or "leaving" spaces or area of effect by (dis)appearing), it doesn't provoke OA, since the rules specifically say so.
Magic Circle tells us teleport = enter. So when you teleport, you are effectively passing from where you disappear into where you appear!
Teleportation does not just make you appear somewhere, it makes you disappear from one place and appear somewhere else, thereby moving you from one place to another instantly. This is a very different concept to the "when it first appears" statement in whirlwind. When something first appears from nowhere it is being created. If you create something inside an area then that thing has not entered the area. Entering requires two things: being outside the area, then at a time after that being inside the area. If you do not exist outside, you cannot enter.
You keep saying Entering requires movement - plucked from an abridged Websters dictionary, then applying a very restrictive (which is to say incorrect) meaning of movement from the rulebooks, then combining it with an assertion that teleportation is not movement which also does not come from the rulebooks beyond deciding that the word "appear" is some sort of anti-moving talisman.
You are not being told that entering doesn't require movement; you are being told that entering doesn't require movement in the specific way you choose to define it. Entering requires a change of location from outside to inside. Moving by walking inside is one such change of location. Teleportation is another.
The rules for OAs specifically call out teleportation and forced movement (like falling) as not triggering an OA. This is a strong indicator that teleporting out of reach would indeed be considered moving out of that reach and would trigger the OA without this added clause.