Unfortunately, in common English, you can not occupy any place that you haven’t entered.
You can... by getting shoved/pulled/forced into it.
In common English The Subject is the one doing the action. If I was pushed into a pool...saying "I entered to pool" is not really representative of what actually happened. Saying "My brother pushed me into the pool" is actually the common English phrase you'd use.
Just consider any other situation and how you would describe them.
Example: Druid casts thorn whip at an Orc, hits, pulls them 10ft into melee range.
"The Orc enters the space adjacent to the Druid"
or
"The Druid pulls the orc 10ft closer into the space adjacent to him"
Like, plain English is pretty obvious here: The Subject is the person/thing that is doing the action and the verb is the action they're performing. The Object in the sentence is the target, the person/thing being acted upon.
That's fundamental plain English here. This isn't a particularly convincing argument either way though. We should be sticking with the rules as they are written.
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.
Enter is defined in English as "to go in". If you were not in a space, then you went into a space, you entered that space. Source: the English language.
While the rules don't define "enter" it does mention it: "Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left." Source: variant grid rules of the movement section of combat chapter.
So either the rules use common english or you never enter a space unless you are using optional variant rules. If only there were a way to tell whether the general rules were written in plain English or with optional variant rules in mind.
Oh wait, plain english. That is a well established fact.
So if you thorn whip a creature into a moonbeam, you’re saying that, contrary to what the designers say in SAC, the creature does not take damage? Then you are saying you know better than the designers?
I defer to the rules text. 100%. So when the rules text says you must have movement to enter a square I just take that at face value. You don't need to follow the rules in the PHB, if you'd prefer something else go for it. I wouldn't think less of you if you did or try to call you out about it. Lots of people homebrew, that doesn't mean you think you know better thn the designers, it just means you know what's right for you and your group and the story you want to tell. More power to you my dude.
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.
Enter is defined in English as "to go in". If you were not in a space, then you went into a space, you entered that space. Source: the English language.
While the rules don't define "enter" it does mention it: "Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left." Source: variant grid rules of the movement section of combat chapter.
So either the rules use common english or you never enter a space unless you are using optional variant rules. If only there were a way to tell whether the general rules were written in plain English or with optional variant rules in mind.
Oh wait, plain english. That is a well established fact.
In plain english the person doing the verb is the subject. If they're not doing the verb they're the object.
Cover this already. If you walk into a space, you entered that space. For sure.
If someone pushed you into a space, you didn't enter it... they pushed you into it.
The subject of your sentences should be the person/thing that is doing the action. Plain English.
Also, still not a convincing argument either way. Just stick to RAW as found in the PHB imo. Works fine.
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 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 the special rules associated with opportunity attacks apply, the special rule regarding teleports applies too. Note that Polearm Mastery says nothing about it costing a reaction, so if the teleport limitation does not exist, why would the also un-repeated reaction limitation?
What "special rules" are you talking about? I can't untangle what you're trying to say here at all.
PaM does only what it says in regard to OAs, which is change the range at which you can make them:
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
All other basic rules regarding opportunity attacks, from them costing a reaction to teleports not triggering them, remain exactly the same precisely because they go unmentioned. If the feat were intended to change them, it would say so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
Unfortunately, in common English, you can not occupy any place that you haven’t entered.
Based on common English with no concern for context, based on how you are defining it there, someone grappling someone could move them in and out of reach of someone with polearm mastery, triggering attacks of opportunity every time they re-enter the reach of the polearm master.
Not sure how many DM's would agree with that interpretation of the victim entering the reach of the polearm master, but on a strict reading, with the definition of 'enter' you are using polearm mastery could act as a buzzsaw effect.
This is explicitly not the case because of the special rules associated with opportunityattacks. But otherwise, yes, you can grapple move a person into an area, sure.
Don’t forget that OAs cost a reaction (that each creature has only one of) and spells often state “first time on a turn.”
If the special rules associated with opportunity attacks apply, the special rule regarding teleports applies too. Note that Polearm Mastery says nothing about it costing a reaction, so if the teleport limitation does not exist, why would the also un-repeated reaction limitation? The feat also does not mention any other limits on how the victim enters the reach of the master.
And why do you keep saying things like 'this spell states' or 'spells often state?' This is a feat, not a spell and is a specific feat at that.
Ah, to be blissfully unaware of the person that has been the sole antagonist of the last 10~12 pages.
The OP has been answered. The feat does not change the specific exceptions of OAs about entering/exiting a space via teleportation or forced movement, so they still don't provoke.
What the remaining 90% of the thread has been about is 1 person asserting that the only way to enter a space is with your own movement, 4 or 5 people disproving that assertion with evidence and examples, then the person ignoring those examples and asserting their claim again. Rinse and repeat some 50 times or however long it takes to get to 265 comments.
[Edit]Update: the antagonist has recently focused their defence around an optional rule and a false understanding of English sentence structure.
Enter is defined in English as "to go in". If you were not in a space, then you went into a space, you entered that space. Source: the English language.
While the rules don't define "enter" it does mention it: "Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left." Source: variant grid rules of the movement section of combat chapter.
So either the rules use common english or you never enter a space unless you are using optional variant rules. If only there were a way to tell whether the general rules were written in plain English or with optional variant rules in mind.
Oh wait, plain english. That is a well established fact.
In plain english the person doing the verb is the subject. If they're not doing the verb they're the object.
Cover this already. If you walk into a space, you entered that space. For sure.
If someone pushed you into a space, you didn't enter it... they pushed you into it.
The subject of your sentences should be the person/thing that is doing the action. Plain English.
Also, still not a convincing argument either way. Just stick to RAW as found in the PHB imo. Works fine.
If the special rules associated with opportunity attacks apply, the special rule regarding teleports applies too. Note that Polearm Mastery says nothing about it costing a reaction, so if the teleport limitation does not exist, why would the also un-repeated reaction limitation?
What "special rules" are you talking about? I can't untangle what you're trying to say here at all.
PaM does only what it says in regard to OAs, which is change the range at which you can make them:
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
All other basic rules regarding opportunity attacks, from them costing a reaction to teleports not triggering them, remain exactly the same precisely because they go unmentioned. If the feat were intended to change them, it would say so.
Lemme just Frankenstein the OA and PAM rules together into a cohesive whole real quick:
Opportunity Attacks with Polearm Master
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear,you can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach or enters your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach or when they enter your reach.
You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.
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.
If the special rules associated with opportunity attacks apply, the special rule regarding teleports applies too. Note that Polearm Mastery says nothing about it costing a reaction, so if the teleport limitation does not exist, why would the also un-repeated reaction limitation?
What "special rules" are you talking about? I can't untangle what you're trying to say here at all.
PaM does only what it says in regard to OAs, which is change the range at which you can make them:
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
All other basic rules regarding opportunity attacks, from them costing a reaction to teleports not triggering them, remain exactly the same precisely because they go unmentioned. If the feat were intended to change them, it would say so.
Lemme just Frankenstein the OA and PAM rules together into a cohesive whole real quick:
Opportunity Attacks with Polearm Master
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear,you can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach or enters your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach or when they enter your reach.
You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.
Ok. Thank you for this. Now.
If teleporting and being moved by others does not constitute "entering or exiting" a space as you have been asserting, why do the rules specifically exclude entering/exiting via teleporting and forced movement from provoking opportunity attacks?
Enter is defined in English as "to go in". If you were not in a space, then you went into a space, you entered that space. Source: the English language.
While the rules don't define "enter" it does mention it: "Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left." Source: variant grid rules of the movement section of combat chapter.
So either the rules use common english or you never enter a space unless you are using optional variant rules. If only there were a way to tell whether the general rules were written in plain English or with optional variant rules in mind.
Oh wait, plain english. That is a well established fact.
In plain english the person doing the verb is the subject. If they're not doing the verb they're the object.
Cover this already. If you walk into a space, you entered that space. For sure.
If someone pushed you into a space, you didn't enter it... they pushed you into it.
The subject of your sentences should be the person/thing that is doing the action. Plain English.
Also, still not a convincing argument either way. Just stick to RAW as found in the PHB imo. Works fine.
Enters isn't a passive verb. lol. This is full-on language pretzel territory. Just actually write out what you're trying to argue in favor of.
For it to be passive, and enter...let give examples of how awkward this phrasing would need to be:
Fighter shoves an enemy 5ft away: Your version ----> "The space 5 ft away was entered by the enemy after being pushed by the fighter"
Druid thorn whips orc 10ft closer into melee: Your version ----> "The space in melee range to the druid was entered by the orc who was pulled 10ft closer by the druid's thorn whip"
You see this right? Yeah, you can phrase things super awkwardly if you're determined enough. But you don't need to do this and it certainly isn't plain English. No one talks like that.
Also, and...I really can't stress this enough. This is the absolutely weakest argument you could possibly scrap together when actual rules text is available to look to. Your argument is: We should ignore the rules in the PHB and instead argue that creatures who have been shoved into a space "entered" that space, in direct opposition to the explicit black and white rules texts, because there is an awkward and strange way to phrase getting shoved as "a space getting entered".
So, when the guy with PAM walks up to a target. The target enters into his reach as the PAM warrior gets closer. <--- This isn't even all that awkward of a phrasing. Just because I can phrase it that way means that the target entered the warriors reach? Oh wait! I didn't use passive voice!
How about... "The PAM warrior's reach was entered by the enemy as the PAM warrior closed into melee range". There we go. Now PAM get OAs whenever they approach because a sentence can be constructed that uses the word enter?
No one talks like this.
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.
If teleporting and being moved by others does not constitute "entering or exiting" a space as you have been asserting, why do the rules specifically exclude entering/exiting via teleporting and forced movement from provoking opportunity attacks?
That's a good question. Since I'm not the author I can only speculate why they wrote anything the way they did. Probably to explain it to people who don't really have a good grasp on what teleporting is, I guess. Can't expect everyone to know how magic should work, it isn't real, no one has any practical experience with how it should function and it operates contrary to what common sense would naturally indicate because of that. So, better to be sure to write in a few bits about how it might interact with stuff that might not be obvious to someone who hadn't spent much time thinking about it.
Now I've got a question for you: If Whirlwind moving into your space vs simply appearing in your space were the same why does the spell specifically outline both of these as separate triggers that could cause damage?
You enter Whirlwind. This triggers damage.
Whirlwind enters your space (when it moves, as commanded by the caster with their action). This triggers damage.
Whirlwind first appears in your space. This triggers damage.
So, why does it specify that it triggers when it first appears? Shouldn't that already be true under both the other two triggers by your argument? Heck, why does it even have those other two triggers if just not being inside it, then being inside it, ALWAYS means you entered it?
While we're here, again... appears is such an interesting word. Teleporting makes you vanish and appear somewhere else. It isn't movement and would in practice trigger the same way other spells and effects appearing would work. Still no one has addressed this.
Anyway, we can clearly see, with whirlwind, that a distinction is made between it appearing vs it moving onto vs you moving into.
This distinction is because it appearing in your space and it moving into your space aren't the same thing. Clearly appearing =/= moving (entering) or this would have just been one trigger, not two. The spell also makes the distinction between you moving into it and it moving into you, so, again, just being inside it doesn't mean you entered it even if you claim that it does.
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.
Proceeds to describe a world where a creature in a space has not entered that space.
You're in the middle of a whirlwind than was just moved to you. Did you enter the whirlwind? Yes/no?
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.
Proceeds to describe a world where a creature in a space has not entered that space.
You're in the middle of a whirlwind than was just moved to you. Did you enter the whirlwind? Yes/no?
The whirlwind has rules for what happens in that situation. It would be described as "the whirlwind's area enters your space," in terms of spell text, I think.
Again. the spell enters the space the creature was occupying. How was the creature occupying that space? They MUST have entered it at some point in the past, by any reasonable understanding of English. If you disagree on that, you aren't talking about anything that warrants any further discussion.
Proceeds to describe a world where a creature in a space has not entered that space.
You're in the middle of a whirlwind than was just moved to you. Did you enter the whirlwind? Yes/no?
The whirlwind has rules for what happens in that situation. It would be described as "the whirlwind's area enters your space," in terms of spell text, I think.
Again. the spell enters the space the creature was occupying. How was the creature occupying that space? They MUST have entered it at some point in the past, by any reasonable understanding of English. If you disagree on that, you aren't talking about anything that warrants any further discussion.
Any reasonable understanding of English would say you entered the Whirlwind too. What with being in the whirlwind. if you're in the whirlwind you must have entered it at some point in the past.
Game terms are game terms. They have specific meaning and specific uses. Entering a Square has rules for what happens in that situation. You must have movement to spend to enter a square.
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.
TLDR: We know conclusively, for a fact, based on the text of the rules themselves:
Teleportation isn't movement, it has no speed, and can't be done with a move.
Entering a space square requires moving into it, specifically by spending movement.
If you can't enter a space square except by using movement, then you can't teleport, fall, or be pushed. Since you can only occupy enter a space square by entering it (or being born there) spending movement to do so.
There is also the fact that your only definition for "entering a square" requires you to be playing on a grid. So if you aren't playing on a grid, according to the assertions of your argument, you can't enter or exit a space square so never trigger OAs or AOEs.
Fixed.
It is helpful to use the correct words when trying to represent arguments. If we're talking about grid rules we're using squares. Yes, they're roughly synonymous with spaces but best to stay precise with our language right? Start swapping out words for other words and it'll just lead to confusion.
Aside from grid rules and entering a square only being possible with movement... I do believe we all settled nicely that teleportation isn't movement. Right?
Like, you can totally Misty Step while under Booming Blade and not have it trigger. Teleportation =/= movement.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You can... by getting shoved/pulled/forced into it.
In common English The Subject is the one doing the action. If I was pushed into a pool...saying "I entered to pool" is not really representative of what actually happened. Saying "My brother pushed me into the pool" is actually the common English phrase you'd use.
Just consider any other situation and how you would describe them.
Example: Druid casts thorn whip at an Orc, hits, pulls them 10ft into melee range.
Like, plain English is pretty obvious here: The Subject is the person/thing that is doing the action and the verb is the action they're performing. The Object in the sentence is the target, the person/thing being acted upon.
That's fundamental plain English here. This isn't a particularly convincing argument either way though. We should be sticking with the rules as they are written.
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.
To my knowledge, Spike Growth is the only spell whose exploitation is riding on all this
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Enter is defined in English as "to go in". If you were not in a space, then you went into a space, you entered that space. Source: the English language.
While the rules don't define "enter" it does mention it: "Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left." Source: variant grid rules of the movement section of combat chapter.
So either the rules use common english or you never enter a space unless you are using optional variant rules. If only there were a way to tell whether the general rules were written in plain English or with optional variant rules in mind.
Oh wait, plain english. That is a well established fact.
I defer to the rules text. 100%. So when the rules text says you must have movement to enter a square I just take that at face value. You don't need to follow the rules in the PHB, if you'd prefer something else go for it. I wouldn't think less of you if you did or try to call you out about it. Lots of people homebrew, that doesn't mean you think you know better thn the designers, it just means you know what's right for you and your group and the story you want to tell. More power to you my dude.
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.
In plain english the person doing the verb is the subject. If they're not doing the verb they're the object.
Cover this already. If you walk into a space, you entered that space. For sure.
If someone pushed you into a space, you didn't enter it... they pushed you into it.
The subject of your sentences should be the person/thing that is doing the action. Plain English.
Also, still not a convincing argument either way. Just stick to RAW as found in the PHB imo. Works fine.
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, you are referring to an optional rule.
I've never played a game not a grid. So, take that for what you may, I'm 100% coming from the perspective that the majority of people play with grids.
Fun Fact though: Feats are an optional rule too but here we are in a thread about how a feat works.
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.
Then you are not discussing anything relevant to the rules and mechanics forum.
What "special rules" are you talking about? I can't untangle what you're trying to say here at all.
PaM does only what it says in regard to OAs, which is change the range at which you can make them:
All other basic rules regarding opportunity attacks, from them costing a reaction to teleports not triggering them, remain exactly the same precisely because they go unmentioned. If the feat were intended to change them, it would say so.
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)
Ah, to be blissfully unaware of the person that has been the sole antagonist of the last 10~12 pages.
The OP has been answered. The feat does not change the specific exceptions of OAs about entering/exiting a space via teleportation or forced movement, so they still don't provoke.
What the remaining 90% of the thread has been about is 1 person asserting that the only way to enter a space is with your own movement, 4 or 5 people disproving that assertion with evidence and examples, then the person ignoring those examples and asserting their claim again. Rinse and repeat some 50 times or however long it takes to get to 265 comments.
[Edit]Update: the antagonist has recently focused their defence around an optional rule and a false understanding of English sentence structure.
I'm about to blow your mind: passive verbs.
Lemme just Frankenstein the OA and PAM rules together into a cohesive whole real quick:
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.
Ok. Thank you for this. Now.
If teleporting and being moved by others does not constitute "entering or exiting" a space as you have been asserting, why do the rules specifically exclude entering/exiting via teleporting and forced movement from provoking opportunity attacks?
Enters isn't a passive verb. lol. This is full-on language pretzel territory. Just actually write out what you're trying to argue in favor of.
For it to be passive, and enter...let give examples of how awkward this phrasing would need to be:
Fighter shoves an enemy 5ft away: Your version ----> "The space 5 ft away was entered by the enemy after being pushed by the fighter"
Druid thorn whips orc 10ft closer into melee: Your version ----> "The space in melee range to the druid was entered by the orc who was pulled 10ft closer by the druid's thorn whip"
You see this right? Yeah, you can phrase things super awkwardly if you're determined enough. But you don't need to do this and it certainly isn't plain English. No one talks like that.
Also, and...I really can't stress this enough. This is the absolutely weakest argument you could possibly scrap together when actual rules text is available to look to. Your argument is: We should ignore the rules in the PHB and instead argue that creatures who have been shoved into a space "entered" that space, in direct opposition to the explicit black and white rules texts, because there is an awkward and strange way to phrase getting shoved as "a space getting entered".
So, when the guy with PAM walks up to a target. The target enters into his reach as the PAM warrior gets closer. <--- This isn't even all that awkward of a phrasing. Just because I can phrase it that way means that the target entered the warriors reach? Oh wait! I didn't use passive voice!
How about... "The PAM warrior's reach was entered by the enemy as the PAM warrior closed into melee range". There we go. Now PAM get OAs whenever they approach because a sentence can be constructed that uses the word enter?
No one talks like this.
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 one talks like this."
Proceeds to describe a world where a creature in a space has not entered that space.
That's a good question. Since I'm not the author I can only speculate why they wrote anything the way they did. Probably to explain it to people who don't really have a good grasp on what teleporting is, I guess. Can't expect everyone to know how magic should work, it isn't real, no one has any practical experience with how it should function and it operates contrary to what common sense would naturally indicate because of that. So, better to be sure to write in a few bits about how it might interact with stuff that might not be obvious to someone who hadn't spent much time thinking about it.
Now I've got a question for you: If Whirlwind moving into your space vs simply appearing in your space were the same why does the spell specifically outline both of these as separate triggers that could cause damage?
So, why does it specify that it triggers when it first appears? Shouldn't that already be true under both the other two triggers by your argument? Heck, why does it even have those other two triggers if just not being inside it, then being inside it, ALWAYS means you entered it?
While we're here, again... appears is such an interesting word. Teleporting makes you vanish and appear somewhere else. It isn't movement and would in practice trigger the same way other spells and effects appearing would work. Still no one has addressed this.
Anyway, we can clearly see, with whirlwind, that a distinction is made between it appearing vs it moving onto vs you moving into.
This distinction is because it appearing in your space and it moving into your space aren't the same thing. Clearly appearing =/= moving (entering) or this would have just been one trigger, not two. The spell also makes the distinction between you moving into it and it moving into you, so, again, just being inside it doesn't mean you entered it even if you claim that it does.
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.
You're in the middle of a whirlwind than was just moved to you. Did you enter the whirlwind? Yes/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.
The whirlwind has rules for what happens in that situation. It would be described as "the whirlwind's area enters your space," in terms of spell text, I think.
Again. the spell enters the space the creature was occupying. How was the creature occupying that space? They MUST have entered it at some point in the past, by any reasonable understanding of English. If you disagree on that, you aren't talking about anything that warrants any further discussion.
Any reasonable understanding of English would say you entered the Whirlwind too. What with being in the whirlwind. if you're in the whirlwind you must have entered it at some point in the past.
Game terms are game terms. They have specific meaning and specific uses. Entering a Square has rules for what happens in that situation. You must have movement to spend to enter a square.
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.
Fixed.
It is helpful to use the correct words when trying to represent arguments. If we're talking about grid rules we're using squares. Yes, they're roughly synonymous with spaces but best to stay precise with our language right? Start swapping out words for other words and it'll just lead to confusion.
Aside from grid rules and entering a square only being possible with movement... I do believe we all settled nicely that teleportation isn't movement. Right?
Like, you can totally Misty Step while under Booming Blade and not have it trigger. Teleportation =/= movement.
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.