I think your DM would be the one to shoot that down.
Hunyock-TX wrote:
Haha no, nice try but no.
I read "enter" as being in the active sense. If I move such that my reach now encompasses the enemy, they didn't (actively) enter my reach, they (passively) were inserted into it. Nothing disproves this, either.
Undrhil wrote:
Hunyock-TX wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
[Joke]
If I don not want to trespass then I can have a friend shove me?
Or.
If I do not want to break and enter, then I can be thrown in?
[/joke]
Macv12 wrote:
Hunyock-TX wrote:
Hunyock-TX wrote:
Hunyock-TX wrote:
Except.... it works exactly that way for Moonbeam, Spirit Guardian, etc. If you walk forward with Spirit Guardian, they enemy 'enters' the area and takes damage. It has entered the AoE, there is nothing in the rules that say the target has to enter voluntarily, nor under their own volition. Just that they enter the AoE. If I use net and scoop up a fish, it has entered the net.
That said.... OAs in specific do not trigger unless the target uses his movement. Just like you can't cause an OA by pushing someone or repelling blast, etc.
I agree with everyone else: this is not how the rule is written or intended. The rule specifically invokes the rules for Opportunity Attacks, which specifically states that you "don't provoke an Opportunity Attack when...something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction". The rules also give the example of falling by an enemy, as "incidental" movement that does not provoke Opportunity Attacks.
I believe the key is the "incidental" nature of the movement, both as RAW and RAI, does not provoke Opportunity Attacks.
EDIT: Note that this does not mean you couldn't ever gain this OA on your turn; a Readied movement by an enemy that causes that enemy to enter the PC's Reach, as the result of a trigger that would be resolved before the PC's action (as soon as the PC moves/becomes visible/takes aim/ raises his sword/etc.?), would still provide this OA, on the PC's turn.
Hunyock-TX wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
TheCriticalFail wrote:
Hunyock-TX wrote:
Well, in regards to spells we have
@calebrus44: Can a caster run around and force enemies to repeatedly "enter"; an AoE over and over, or must enemiies "enter" voluntarily?@JeremyECrawford: When a spell's description uses "enter"; in relation to an AoE, the entering has to be voluntary only if the text says so.
jaelis wrote:
You can not force an OA onto a creature. Mind control spells are a different thing. If something forces someone out of your reach, you don't get an OA. If you force a creature to enter your reach (by moving at it) with PM, you don't get it either.
So I was caught in my neighbor's Kitchen the other day. I happily informed him I was well within my rights because his house entered the area under my feet and his food exited his fridge and entered my mouth, all of its own accord.
I was just making bites of opportunity.
Noctaem wrote:
I've made a more specific tweet to Jeremy which hopefully he'll answer. Regardless, in terms of balance moving the effect onto a target shouldn't proc in my opinion (I'll definitely houserule otherwise if it's stated it should) since it makes several spells FAR too powerful for their level. Spirit guardians would be almost guranteed to proc at least twice per target per round, dealing 6d8 in total, and lasts for 10 minutes of uninterrupted. That's essentially a fireball every round of every fight for ten minutes, for the same spell slot. And again, that's at its weakest.
Pretty certain that is NOT intended.
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
I think the issue at hand is this interpretation that is in this twitter discussion. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/16/spirit-guardian/
I am undecided on the issue as I haven't seen it used in combat, but to the OP's question, I think that you could use this together with your opinion and argue that you could get a sort of double attack (and not have a reaction left after your turn), but that would be heavily DM dependent. I wouldn't allow it, but that's just b/c of the cheese. I, and apparently most - if not all- others seem to think that this wasn't the intended purpose.
Noctaem wrote:
RAW says they wouldn't unless they start their turn while the wall of fire is still occupying their space. However, if I was creating that kind of scenario I would make it so that the wall of fire did damage when it enters your space, a lesser value and the same if you were forced moved into it. More if you start your turn inside of it. Basically the scenario would require an added line of text to cover the possibility since the whole scenario seems intended to create the danger of the wall of fire rotating into your face.
ETV I suppose.
Noctaem wrote:
The target needs to 'enter the area of effect'... there is nothing saying he has to be moving and the area has to be stationary. If you are outside, then become inside, you have 'entered' that area of effect.
JC has multiple tweets on this topic, and has been consistent about it every time. I suggest reading the link tha texassnowman has provided.. it makes it pretty darn explict how it works.
Yes, you can 'run past' multiple people with spirit guardian, or have moonbeam travel over multiple creatures... and each and every creature will need to make a saving throw or take damage. The only restriction is you can only take damage once per turn.
Coredump00 wrote:
First, opportunity attacks are only possible when a hostile creature moves, not when you move.
Basic Rules, page 74. "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."
The feat says the same thing. "…other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach." When "they" move, not when "you" move.
Additionally, if someone shoves you or otherwise moves you into a creature's reach then you don't provoke an attack or opportunity. I extrapolate this to mean that you only provoke attacks of opportunity when you actively do something to move into someone's reach.
Basic Rules, page 74."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."
Noctaem wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
lawrencehoy wrote:
It seems pretty clear that the dev has ruled that to "enter" an AOE or something else, it only means that you were not in it and then now you are. The tweet I quoted says as much, you only have to move yourself into the zone or whatnot if the spell, ability, etc. says you do. Now, in saying that, I don't know that he would intend for it to apply here, but the wording is similar. I personally don't think I'd allow you to trigger a reactionary attack for yourself simply by moving within 10 feet of an enemy, but that's me.
Also worth noting, just becauase they rule it one way doesn't mean we have to rule it that way ourselves at our own tables. I have never been at two tables that have ruled everything the same. That's just how it goes, nothing wrong with it. As far as RAW, that can be debated for sure. And it seems as though the polearm master feat got a little more interesting if (and I would rule that you can't) you can trigger an OA by moving within 10 feet of someone.
And let's be clear, to those of you who are ignoring what has been stated by a Dev saying that it isn't what the book says and that you are right while he is wrong...remember that on other threads you might be arguing with someone saying the same thing about a different topic, and in many cases becoming incredulous about their ignorance. I get it, but remember that you're playing both sides of the fence if you do this.
I would recommend tweeting JC again with a more direct question regarding this discussion.. something like:
"for zones, does 'enter the zone' only apply when you move willingly and via forced movement.. or also when you move the zone onto someone?"
Pretty sure that's not too many characters. if it is just remove quotations, dots and the for at the start until you can send. should work.
Noctaem wrote:
texassnowman wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
texassnowman wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
posineg wrote:
It does seem as though the intent is that you have to move into the spell to be considered "entering the AoE", either voluntarily or against your will whereas the spell moving to you doesn't count as "entering the AoE".
So my example of a moving wall of fire means you can stand in place and the wall may pass over you a dozen times... you'll never take damage. If however you use movement to move into the wall's current position or if a creature or effect moves you into the wall's current position, you do take damage. The key being you have to be doing the moving in order to be "entering" the spell effect. The spell effect moving to you doesn't count as you entering the spell effect.
OoftaMeg wrote:
jaelis wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
TheCriticalFail wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
First of all, thanks to everyone who has taken the time to post a response and provide examples! This started out with me asking about the Polearm Master feat and all the talk about spells has provided some context and precedents that I was previously lacking.
Part of what I find confusing about the language is that the standard Opportunity Attack (PHB p195) specifically says "when a hostile creature moves out of your reach". Not "a hostile creature exits your reach" (which may or may not be a result of their movement).
"Enter" is a poor choice, because it can be used as a verb that implies movement "Bob entered his house", or it can be used as a verb that implies a change in state "Bob entered retirement". All of these game mechanics involve movement, states (whether you are inside or outside of an AoE, reach, etc.), and a trigger that indicates when something happens (entering or leaving the AoE, reach, etc.). So the word does a poor job of differentiating whether it's talking about the action or the change in state or both.
So if we say that "enter" is defined (as a D&D 5e game mechanic) as always implying active movement (meaning either the attacker or the target must move) and not only as a change in state then it may not always make sense but it does provide some consistency in terms of game mechanics (I don't think it makes rational sense that cloudkill or moonbeam or whatever doesn't damage you if I cast it on you, but it does damage you if I move it onto you, or if you move into it, but I'm willing to suspend disbelief for consistency).
So to bring this back around to the original question... if I apply the logic and the implied definition of "enter" as given in the Spirit Guardian tweet, then I believe Polearm Master does give an OA when the attacker moves towards an opponent. The target entered the attacker's reach (enter meaning that there was active movement by one participant AND there was a change in state), same as with Spirit Guardian if the cleric runs within 15' of an enemy. In both cases, the attacker (the active creature) is moving, causing the defender to come within the AoE / reach. Transitioning from outside the AoE / reach to inside the AoE / reach (entering) is the trigger that causes something to happen (the Spirit Guardian saving throw, or the OA).
I think that makes sense?
Hunyock-TX wrote:
Hunyock-TX wrote:
I would still stick with the general rules for Opportunity Attacks when you're talking about Opportunity Attacks. Had Polearm Master not stated that the reaction attack was an Opportunity Attack (generally one that can't happen if movement isn't performed by the creature triggering the attack because then it wouldn't be them lowering their guard and giving you the opportunity to attack), then I'd say it'd work like you intend. Since they deemed it necessary to call it an OA, with the specifics only changing the exiting reach to entering reach, I'd say both RAW and RAI would still have the OA follow the general rules of OAs with the single exception stated.
You can argue all day about the semantics of one word in a statement that has multiple meanings, but the meaning of the word needs to be taken in context of the whole statement. In this case, a statement involving OAs and having nothing to do with how some spell mechanics work.
Another thing to think about is trying to take the general OA rule and apply it to your scenario. It's your turn and move 5 feet away from the guy you were fighting with your sword, at some point during that move the guy has moved out of your reach, right? So you get an Opportunity Attack against them, right? No, because the OA only can be made when something provokes the attack. No provocation, no OA.
Perhaps the Polearm Master should be "moves into" and not "enters", but really... does it make any difference?
TheCriticalFail wrote:
Hunyock-TX wrote:
Say I have a 15ft pool of magical acid that I can move. Creatures A and B are within the AoE when I cast it. I move so that creature A is repeatedly in and out of the AoE, while creature B remains within it constantly.
Now look at it narratively: Creature B, who has been constantly in the acid, takes less damage than creaturw A, who was in the acid for a far shorter time.
One problem I see is that some people are thinking of combat as 'taking turns'. The reason zone damage would happen at the start of your turn or if you move into the zone is because we don't expect anyone to stand still while someone else runs a zone spell back and forth over them while they wait for their turn to move. It's also expected that you are inside the zone for long enough to take the damage (have to breath in, the spirits get a chance to attack you, the moonbeam is starting to burn, etc). Walls are different because it's expected that just touching the wall will affect you (and you can be damage from it on the caster's turn).
If you are surrounded by bad guys and cast Spirit Guardian on yourself, you would expect that those who did not want to keep taking damage from it would move out of the spell. Since they are already inside the spell they take damage at the start of their turn before they get a chance to move out.
If a player says he can't understand why the 30 people he dashed past did not all take damage then tell him that the spirits were moving with him and would start attacking again once an enemy spends enough time next to him for them to attack (by starting his turn there or moving inside the zone).
I don't have a problem with taking damage immediately as soon as you're in a spell AoE.
I do have a problem with taking it repeatedly.
Regardless of the actual rule, I would just say you can't be hit by an AoE again until your next turn. But if that ends up being too much bookkeeping (and I don't imagine it would), "start of turn only" is the next best approximation.
Macv12 wrote:
TheCriticalFail wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
TheCriticalFail wrote:
Yunru wrote:
I believe that there is a JC tweet about how involuntary movement out of a creature's reach does NOT trigger an opportunity attack ... if that changes anything for anyone.
Yunru wrote:
TheCriticalFail wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
TheCriticalFail wrote:
TheCriticalFail wrote:
That's fair enough then. Maybe it's a difference between people have mostly come into DMing in this edition compared to those who played earlier editions, as I distinctly recall the book recommending to roll initiative for each group/type of creatures, and we regularly have combats that only involve one type.
And yes, not necessarily all creatures will fit in. But my issue with regards to the potency of spirit guardians compared to other spells like fireball. And yes there's no NEED to move the AOE... but if it causes the damage to proc again, why wouldn't you? Though that may just be the fact that myself, and most people I've played with, tend to go for optimal plays in combat. As I side note, I'd be fine with Spirit Guardians if you couldn't take over actions, or at least disengage, while it was up. That way you at least couldn't just freely move in an out and proc extra damage for no real cost. In a manner which makes no sense (yes, running out of the lava/damaging effect and then back in is going to deal twice as much damage to you as staying in it... what's your point?).
Lastly we disagree on what's considered significant. I'd say that staying up for one round, resulting in damage and value equal to twice that of fireball, is a VERY significant increase. But that's just opinion and semantics.
Basically, we still disagree but at least we're on the same page now XD Which is all that's important really. I'm still hoping for a clarification that implies they planned to allow it to deal damage when moved over, but not proc so easily multiple times a round though.
TheCriticalFail wrote:
Yunru wrote:
As far as Spirit Guardians, JC pretty much said that if you find people are abusing it, you should probably adjust how it works. His point was that they hadn't seen people abusing it so they weren't worried about it.
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
That was the fix implemented for flame spiral and the like in 4e but it specified only once per turn. So you couldn't abuse them by repeatedly entering and leaving a zone for multiple taps in the same turn.
Just change it from "the first time on a turn" to "the first time on its turn" for all spells like this. If casting the spell right on the target doesn't damage it on your turn, why should casting it and then walking into the target be different?
These effects should only happen once per round, on the target's turn, IMHO.
Danny_Montanny wrote:
TheCriticalFail wrote:
texassnowman wrote:
Lets look at some scenario illustrations.
Party opens door and sees 6 bad guys in a room.
Mage casts fireball and does 8d6 damage (28hp)
fighter runs in and attacks
Cleric casts SG and runs in doing 3d8 damage (13.5 hp)
Rogue runs in an SA
Bad guys go, and all take antoher 3D8 damage (13.5 hp)
So right now the SG and the fireball have done the same damage (28 vs 27)
The difference is the fireball is *done* doing damage.
It is quite feasible that the cleric still has SG going...
Round2
Mage can't cast fireball because of allies. Does something else
fighter attacks
Cleric casts Spirtitual Weapon, and casts Sacred Flame. Potentially moves back 15' and forward 15' to cause another 3D8 damage to all creatures.
Roge attacks
Bad guys go and all take another 3D8 damage.
etc.
If the mage was a bit lower on init round 1, no fireball happens at all. OTOH, if the bad guys were further away, then the fireball works, and the SG doesn't.
Or look at it another way.
What if we change Fireball to be similar to Call Lighting. Change Fireball to 10 min Conc, and every round you can cast another fireball as a Free Action. Does that sound balanced? Heck, we can even reduce the range to 5', but make all of your friends immune.
I don't think SG is broken, but it can be exploited. TBH, I am not even sure if it can be exploited enough to be 'broken' or not. I mean, is it really any worse than a devoted melee fighter, or archer?
I played a fighter1/cleric9 with warcaster. I spammed SG with some spiritutual weapon support, and it was pretty darn powerful. I was usually able to stay behind the fighters, but the few hits I took, the con save was a breeze. (Only downside was low str meant only 20' movement....but I am sure I could have gotten around that somehow)
Moonbeam is another one.... smaller area, but ranged and does more damage.
I don't think these spells are 'broken', but they are very powerful, and a clever player can stack the deck in his favor quite a bit. I think splitting up initiative is a pretty decent 'nerf' to this combo.
My opinion:
The wording of the spells and the feat allows them to be powerful. But a cleric cannot have another concentration spell going (perhaps a buff) while spirit guardians is going, and must forgoe using other abilities (i.e. their movement and possibly action or bonus action, depending on the build) in order to optimize the damage output of spirit guardians (same with moonbeam). And a character uses their reaction on their turn instead of another PC or NPC's turn to use PaM, thereby forgoing any other reactions till the beginning of their next turn. IMO the resources a PC must consume balances.
As I say to my group, NPCs have access to these resources as well. And while PCs can use them over and over again, when NPCs do it, it tends to be devastating, especially since the DM has control over the scenario (setup and evolution). That being said, the DM has MANY tools at their disposal to make sure things remain interesting. Concentration checks eventually fail (admittedly hard if the cleric has war caster and a 5 con mod), dispel magic is available, moving the cleric unwillingly away through magical or mundane means, or NPCs retreating to regroup a la Han Solo-storm trooper style are just a few.
Doing pure damage comparisons is a bit limited in comparing spells. Yes, SG can output, on average, approximately the same damage as a fireball (assuming failed saves), but every "round". But there are many things to consider: range, area of effect, damage type etc. Then consider tactical things like distance to monster/NPC, spread, effect on allies (to name a few). Now consider class abilities, e.g. the fact that clerics get less spells per long rest than wizards, sorcerors, and warlocks (assuming plenty of short rests).
I can't tell if its balanced, and I used to care a lot about that. But what I've begun to learn, from 5th ed, is that it's about fun. And sometimes fun is tied to balance, but having players feel powerful at the table (and not at the expense of any body else) is AWESOME. And the DM gets to make it challenging; they get to "cheat" to do that so that they can create really interesting stories that players will remember.
But I am definitely confused by JC saying that casting a spell on someone's space doesn't count as them entering. WTF!? If I cast blade barrier, wall of fire, evard's, or cloudkill, in a way which includes the creatures space, it doesn't trigger save/damage? That's just weird. But I'm sure more clarification will come, and I just have to be consistent till then.
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Quad_Hund wrote:
mrpopstar wrote: