For many the thread title will make the following question pretty obvious, but when it comes to Spike Growth's 2d4 for every 5 feet, is every 5 feet considered a different application of damage, and therefore warranting its own seperate Concentration check? Would a Thorn Whip pulling you through 10 feet of Spike Growth warrant 3 seperate concentration checks? Would you just apply seperate concentration checks seperately when walking through it, or also through instantaneous forced movement as in the previous example?
So which one is it? Adding all the damage at the end of movement/forced movement, and making a concentration check based on that number, or making one DC10 concentration check every time? I´ve been looking for this topic and I haven´t seen it brought up yet.
The creature takes damage for every 5 feet that it travels- so the damage takes place at the end of every five feet of movement. This is unaffected by whether the movement through spike growth is voluntary creature movement or involuntary movement caused by another effect. This would make each instance of damage a separate check for concentration, rather than a single, large cumulative check.
Movement can generally be broken up, so for a character moving on its own turn, it certainly should be able to move 5 feet at a time and take seperate damage. That could be to its benefit, if it has damage resistance.
But can a character choose not to break up its movement, and instead just dash through the full length to take cumulative damage once on the other side of the effect? Or, for forced movement not on the character's turn, where the third party is not generally permitted to break up the movement... would you interupt the forced movement effect to roll damage one square at a time to see how far they get, or just let the forced movement effect move them the full distance and take full cumulative damage?
I think the spell is ambiguous enough to permit both approaches. That kinda hinges on whether you read "when a creature moves.... takes for every 5 feet it travels" as having a different implication than "whenever the creature moves 5 feet or more, it takes..." would. Spell effects don't have their own action economy, it's not like the Spike Growth is taking a reaction to deal damage after each unit of movement provides a trigger, which would have a defined place in the turn order. And even if they did, would that trigger be "moves 5 feet" or "moves 5 feet or more"? I'd be concerned about a ruling that allowed the character to complete it's full movement before taking damage (for instance, running through 10 feet of spikes, but then moving another 20 feet beyond before taking damage), and especially worried that might set a bad precedent for other damage-on-move spells like Booming Blade...
Enforcing a damage roll (and concentration check) each and every square that's moved through, that's definitely the safe choice. I think that one damage roll and concentration check at the edge of the effect is also okay. But I wouldn't let them continue to move beyond the effect without first taking the damage.
Isn't the general rule of movement that only voluntary movement counts as "movement" regarding the triggering of game effects? I know that's the rule for AoOs, but would that also apply here with the Thorn Whip example?
There is no such general rule. You are thinking of the rule that only your own movement provokes opportunity attacks, from PHB Chapter 9. Certain spells do require "voluntary movement" or "willingly moves" to trigger (see Booming Blade), which is its own ball of wax... but Spike Growth isn't one of them.
"When a creature moves into or within the area, it takes 2d4 piercing damage for every 5 feet it travels."
There is nothing in the wording to suggest one way or another, I think. Much like the Magic Missile debate, people that often argue that if all the missiles hit at the same time, then it´s one instance of damage. But then this was clarified by Crawford who said there should be as many concentration checks as there are missiles hitting.
So these sorts of things seem to be in a gray area up to each DM to decide. I started the debate to hear your opinions before this weeks game, a heavily modified LMoP, where Yeemik the goblin boss in Cragmaw Hideout is a spore Druid and the fight will heavily feature this spell. (Party of 8 lvl 2s)
My stance right now seems to be if its walking over, either by compulsion (Dissonand Whispers, Command) or willingly, then one for each 5ft square. If its forced movement (Thorn Whip, Thunderwave, the dungeon´s flood), then one for the total damage.
But its interesting to hear your thoughts so please keep em coming.
"When a creature moves into or within the area, it takes 2d4 piercing damage for every 5 feet it travels."
There is nothing in the wording to suggest one way or another, I think. Much like the Magic Missile debate, people that often argue that if all the missiles hit at the same time, then it´s one instance of damage. But then this was clarified by Crawford who said there should be as many concentration checks as there are missiles hitting.
So these sorts of things seem to be in a gray area up to each DM to decide. I started the debate to hear your opinions before this weeks game, a heavily modified LMoP, where Yeemik the goblin boss in Cragmaw Hideout is a spore Druid and the fight will heavily feature this spell. (Party of 8 lvl 2s)
My stance right now seems to be if its walking over, either by compulsion (Dissonand Whispers, Command) or willingly, then one for each 5ft square. If its forced movement (Thorn Whip, Thunderwave, the dungeon´s flood), then one for the total damage.
But its interesting to hear your thoughts so please keep em coming.
Do you have a link to that comment by Crawford? That is a huge issue, and I would like to read that.
As with so many of his tweets, not much to read. The man is dryer than rock salt.
Yeah, Crawford is hardly verbose. That ruling is huge. It pretty much guarantees killing concentration with a very low damage spell. 3 conc rolls from a 1st level spell is insane. I am a RAW guy, but if this ever came up in my game, or any game I played in, I would have to have a real hard look at that ruling. It does not seem fair.
It kind of is specifically why Magic Missile is such a staple for wizard duels though. Wizards rarely have high AC, nor are they likely to have particularly low Spell Attack bonuses. They throw Magic Missile at each other, not because it's a good way to guarantee damage, but because it's a good way to guarantee disruption to the other's concentration. 5E is not the first edition of D&D where that has been true.
I see it as revitalizing a famous (but kind of terrible) spell at higher levels, and it gives increased importance for a spellcaster to know shield. The DC for the saving throw would be 10 due to the low damage, not completely unrecoverable especially for Sorcerers (with proficiency with CON saves) and classes expected to have better CON in general.
I see it as revitalizing a famous (but kind of terrible) spell at higher levels, and it gives increased importance for a spellcaster to know shield. The DC for the saving throw would be 10 due to the low damage, not completely unrecoverable especially for Sorcerers (with proficiency with CON saves) and classes expected to have better CON in general.
Yes, Shield is one way to stop this. But the effect is horrifying without Shield or a Broach. Say you are Joe the Bard, with a Con of 12. (+1 on Saves). Shield is not available to you. You get hit with the 1st level version of this, and have to make 3 rolls. You need a 9 or higher, thanks to that +1 from Con. Or 60% of the time you save. But that means on 2 saves, you manage 36% of the time to make both saves, and 21.6% on all 3 saves. With a 2nd level version of this spell, now are are looking at 12.96%. That is way too powerful for something do such a relatively small amount of damage.
Good rule of thumb when reading the rules: don't overthink it. The spell says it deals 2d4 damage for every 5 feet traveled and it means it. The spell doesn't care about how or why the creature is moving. As soon as it racks up another 5 feet of movement, apply damage.
In my opinion it's pretty obvious racking up a damage debt isn't the intended way to read it. It doesn't line up with the narrative action (if you have to step multiple times on sharp things, you're going to feel it the whole way through, not just at the end) and ruling that way allows for silly outcomes like a 1 HP creature running from one side of the area to the other successfully.
In combat, when I cast spike growth and an enemy moves through it we do the movement and then total up the number of dice. The DM doesn’t move them 5 feet and then roll damage, then decide if the enemy wants to move another 5 feet, roll damage, then decide if they want to move another 5 feet. They either move or don’t move.
I would treat the concentration checks the same. Move, total it up, then make your save.
If your wizard wants to move 5 feet and stop, make a check, then decide if they want to move more, then that’s up to them and would treat each move separately. But if the wizard said I’m moving from here to there and it was 15 feet then I would roll 6d4 (15 damage average, then in half around 8 damage so probably DC10 save) and have the wizard roll once.
Yes, Shield is one way to stop this. But the effect is horrifying without Shield or a Broach. Say you are Joe the Bard, with a Con of 12. (+1 on Saves). Shield is not available to you. You get hit with the 1st level version of this, and have to make 3 rolls. You need a 9 or higher, thanks to that +1 from Con. Or 60% of the time you save. But that means on 2 saves, you manage 36% of the time to make both saves, and 21.6% on all 3 saves. With a 2nd level version of this spell, now are are looking at 12.96%. That is way too powerful for something do such a relatively small amount of damage.
Looking at it another way you could say that it makes up for it having such low damage. It is reliable poke damage, a nuisance spell kind of meant to break concentration. I feel I would run Spike Growth the same way, with the character basically going, "Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow" and risking breaking concentration with every spike they get pulled over.
I mean, at some point though, we're taking 2d4 damage per 5 feet and not 1 damage per foot because the system is already willing to accept that separate sources of small amounts of damage (individual spikes) should be bundled together to represent the impact of being hurt by several of them at once. When you walk into a Cloud of Daggers, you take 4d4 damage, not 1d4 damage from multiple daggers. It's not black and white, taking one source of damage for "all the thorns you ran through" isn't that different from taking one bit of damage for all these thorns, and another for all those thorns, and...
I don't think logic dictates one vs. the other. This is a question about game balance and combat flow. There are some real advantages to streamlining this as one effect (table speed, narrative flow, functionally more similar to other distance-based-damage like falling, functionally more similar to other damage/control zone spells like Spirit Guardians), and advantages to counting it per square (makes it a more granular control spell for dictating enemy movement, makes it a more effective spellcaster deterrent, better precedent to carry over to other spells like Booming Blade).
I mostly agree with the conclusion that it should be damage separately rolled every 5 feet. But I don't think it's "overthinking it" to use the other (simpler) approach instead.
I mean, there is nothing wrong with rolling the damage all at once then asking the player to make 3 Concentration saves all at once. Most people I play with have 3d20s....the process can be done in two rolls if needed. a creature with 30 feet of movement (actually moving 15' due to difficult terrain) would roll twice...6d4 for the spikes, 3d20 for the saves.
The only time I would not ask for the above is where the creatures HP was low enough that they might not survive the full journey, mostly because I track bodies for potential cover/improvised weapons (I've never said no to a PC using a dead goblin as a club), so the location they drop might be important. Or if the loss of concentration might change the outcome of the next movement.
For many the thread title will make the following question pretty obvious, but when it comes to Spike Growth's 2d4 for every 5 feet, is every 5 feet considered a different application of damage, and therefore warranting its own seperate Concentration check? Would a Thorn Whip pulling you through 10 feet of Spike Growth warrant 3 seperate concentration checks? Would you just apply seperate concentration checks seperately when walking through it, or also through instantaneous forced movement as in the previous example?
So which one is it? Adding all the damage at the end of movement/forced movement, and making a concentration check based on that number, or making one DC10 concentration check every time? I´ve been looking for this topic and I haven´t seen it brought up yet.
Cheers!
The creature takes damage for every 5 feet that it travels- so the damage takes place at the end of every five feet of movement. This is unaffected by whether the movement through spike growth is voluntary creature movement or involuntary movement caused by another effect. This would make each instance of damage a separate check for concentration, rather than a single, large cumulative check.
I imagine a DM could rule either way. I take the 1 instance of damage every 5 feet approach.
Movement can generally be broken up, so for a character moving on its own turn, it certainly should be able to move 5 feet at a time and take seperate damage. That could be to its benefit, if it has damage resistance.
But can a character choose not to break up its movement, and instead just dash through the full length to take cumulative damage once on the other side of the effect? Or, for forced movement not on the character's turn, where the third party is not generally permitted to break up the movement... would you interupt the forced movement effect to roll damage one square at a time to see how far they get, or just let the forced movement effect move them the full distance and take full cumulative damage?
I think the spell is ambiguous enough to permit both approaches. That kinda hinges on whether you read "when a creature moves.... takes for every 5 feet it travels" as having a different implication than "whenever the creature moves 5 feet or more, it takes..." would. Spell effects don't have their own action economy, it's not like the Spike Growth is taking a reaction to deal damage after each unit of movement provides a trigger, which would have a defined place in the turn order. And even if they did, would that trigger be "moves 5 feet" or "moves 5 feet or more"? I'd be concerned about a ruling that allowed the character to complete it's full movement before taking damage (for instance, running through 10 feet of spikes, but then moving another 20 feet beyond before taking damage), and especially worried that might set a bad precedent for other damage-on-move spells like Booming Blade...
Enforcing a damage roll (and concentration check) each and every square that's moved through, that's definitely the safe choice. I think that one damage roll and concentration check at the edge of the effect is also okay. But I wouldn't let them continue to move beyond the effect without first taking the damage.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Isn't the general rule of movement that only voluntary movement counts as "movement" regarding the triggering of game effects? I know that's the rule for AoOs, but would that also apply here with the Thorn Whip example?
There is no such general rule. You are thinking of the rule that only your own movement provokes opportunity attacks, from PHB Chapter 9. Certain spells do require "voluntary movement" or "willingly moves" to trigger (see Booming Blade), which is its own ball of wax... but Spike Growth isn't one of them.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"When a creature moves into or within the area, it takes 2d4 piercing damage for every 5 feet it travels."
There is nothing in the wording to suggest one way or another, I think. Much like the Magic Missile debate, people that often argue that if all the missiles hit at the same time, then it´s one instance of damage. But then this was clarified by Crawford who said there should be as many concentration checks as there are missiles hitting.
So these sorts of things seem to be in a gray area up to each DM to decide. I started the debate to hear your opinions before this weeks game, a heavily modified LMoP, where Yeemik the goblin boss in Cragmaw Hideout is a spore Druid and the fight will heavily feature this spell. (Party of 8 lvl 2s)
My stance right now seems to be if its walking over, either by compulsion (Dissonand Whispers, Command) or willingly, then one for each 5ft square. If its forced movement (Thorn Whip, Thunderwave, the dungeon´s flood), then one for the total damage.
But its interesting to hear your thoughts so please keep em coming.
Do you have a link to that comment by Crawford? That is a huge issue, and I would like to read that.
Yes sir.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/22/do-you-roll-concentration-for-every-instance-of-damage-taken/amp
As with so many of his tweets, not much to read. The man is dryer than rock salt.
Yeah, Crawford is hardly verbose. That ruling is huge. It pretty much guarantees killing concentration with a very low damage spell. 3 conc rolls from a 1st level spell is insane. I am a RAW guy, but if this ever came up in my game, or any game I played in, I would have to have a real hard look at that ruling. It does not seem fair.
It kind of is specifically why Magic Missile is such a staple for wizard duels though. Wizards rarely have high AC, nor are they likely to have particularly low Spell Attack bonuses. They throw Magic Missile at each other, not because it's a good way to guarantee damage, but because it's a good way to guarantee disruption to the other's concentration. 5E is not the first edition of D&D where that has been true.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I see it as revitalizing a famous (but kind of terrible) spell at higher levels, and it gives increased importance for a spellcaster to know shield. The DC for the saving throw would be 10 due to the low damage, not completely unrecoverable especially for Sorcerers (with proficiency with CON saves) and classes expected to have better CON in general.
Yes, Shield is one way to stop this. But the effect is horrifying without Shield or a Broach. Say you are Joe the Bard, with a Con of 12. (+1 on Saves). Shield is not available to you. You get hit with the 1st level version of this, and have to make 3 rolls. You need a 9 or higher, thanks to that +1 from Con. Or 60% of the time you save. But that means on 2 saves, you manage 36% of the time to make both saves, and 21.6% on all 3 saves. With a 2nd level version of this spell, now are are looking at 12.96%. That is way too powerful for something do such a relatively small amount of damage.
Good rule of thumb when reading the rules: don't overthink it. The spell says it deals 2d4 damage for every 5 feet traveled and it means it. The spell doesn't care about how or why the creature is moving. As soon as it racks up another 5 feet of movement, apply damage.
In my opinion it's pretty obvious racking up a damage debt isn't the intended way to read it. It doesn't line up with the narrative action (if you have to step multiple times on sharp things, you're going to feel it the whole way through, not just at the end) and ruling that way allows for silly outcomes like a 1 HP creature running from one side of the area to the other successfully.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
In combat, when I cast spike growth and an enemy moves through it we do the movement and then total up the number of dice. The DM doesn’t move them 5 feet and then roll damage, then decide if the enemy wants to move another 5 feet, roll damage, then decide if they want to move another 5 feet. They either move or don’t move.
I would treat the concentration checks the same. Move, total it up, then make your save.
If your wizard wants to move 5 feet and stop, make a check, then decide if they want to move more, then that’s up to them and would treat each move separately. But if the wizard said I’m moving from here to there and it was 15 feet then I would roll 6d4 (15 damage average, then in half around 8 damage so probably DC10 save) and have the wizard roll once.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Looking at it another way you could say that it makes up for it having such low damage. It is reliable poke damage, a nuisance spell kind of meant to break concentration. I feel I would run Spike Growth the same way, with the character basically going, "Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow" and risking breaking concentration with every spike they get pulled over.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I mean, at some point though, we're taking 2d4 damage per 5 feet and not 1 damage per foot because the system is already willing to accept that separate sources of small amounts of damage (individual spikes) should be bundled together to represent the impact of being hurt by several of them at once. When you walk into a Cloud of Daggers, you take 4d4 damage, not 1d4 damage from multiple daggers. It's not black and white, taking one source of damage for "all the thorns you ran through" isn't that different from taking one bit of damage for all these thorns, and another for all those thorns, and...
I don't think logic dictates one vs. the other. This is a question about game balance and combat flow. There are some real advantages to streamlining this as one effect (table speed, narrative flow, functionally more similar to other distance-based-damage like falling, functionally more similar to other damage/control zone spells like Spirit Guardians), and advantages to counting it per square (makes it a more granular control spell for dictating enemy movement, makes it a more effective spellcaster deterrent, better precedent to carry over to other spells like Booming Blade).
I mostly agree with the conclusion that it should be damage separately rolled every 5 feet. But I don't think it's "overthinking it" to use the other (simpler) approach instead.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I mean, there is nothing wrong with rolling the damage all at once then asking the player to make 3 Concentration saves all at once. Most people I play with have 3d20s....the process can be done in two rolls if needed. a creature with 30 feet of movement (actually moving 15' due to difficult terrain) would roll twice...6d4 for the spikes, 3d20 for the saves.
The only time I would not ask for the above is where the creatures HP was low enough that they might not survive the full journey, mostly because I track bodies for potential cover/improvised weapons (I've never said no to a PC using a dead goblin as a club), so the location they drop might be important. Or if the loss of concentration might change the outcome of the next movement.