D&D 5E Rant about Forced Movement

[TiQuinn]

you say that as if it were a benefit that every table has to hash out what the rules mean by themselves

It’s better than some of the language contortions I’ve seen in D&D to maneuver around rule lawyers.

 

[billd91]

Sickening radiance in Xanathar’s does have wording issues that can be exploited or clamped down on. While it says moves in on A turn, not ITS turn, it also does say “moves” not “is moved” so you could claim that forced movement like shoves or drags won’t apply. At least it says that the damage applies the first time a creature moves in so you can’t get them in and out repeatedly in a turn.

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem is that WotC didn't follow its own paradigm and screwed up in 2024.

There should be three types of zone.

• Physical objects like spikes and blade barriers you get hurt for moving through
• Fast zones like crackling lightning or spirit guardians that you get hurt for starting your turn in - you then get to run out. If you're stupid enough to run into one of these on your turn you take damage.
• Slow zones like Sickening Radiance that hurt after a few seconds if you end the turn there rather than running the hell away

And then the 2024 team messed up and had the zone moving into the target allowing fast zones to trigger again.

This was the case in the 2014 rules. The trouble was, a lot of folks had trouble remembering which type of zone any given effect was. So, in 2024 they tried to clean it up and just have all zones work the same way. I don't have the book yet so I haven't read through in detail to see if they were successful, but that was at least the idea. Probably leads to some weird side-effects, but it's also probably easier for most groups to run at the table.

 

[James Gasik]

who is they, the 2024 rules? Yeah, that is not a clarification, that is BS

Nope, this guy.

EDIT: also this.

 

[MarkB]

This is apparently nothing new, but it's my first encounter with it, so bear with me. An enemy Wizard cast sickening radiance, and another enemy punts a PC into it. Like a human, I assume "moves into" means just that, and tell the player to make a Con save. Before the start of their turn, they're coming at me with a "clarification" that "moves" and "enters" are two entirely different things, and being punted into radioactive hell is not damaging at all, provided you didn't walk into it under your own power.

I'm not familiar with that distinction in the 2014 rules. The only major difference between forced and voluntary movement is that forced movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.

 

[GMMichael]

Meanwhile, another player was pulled out of the area before the start of their turn, so they took absolutely no damage! I'm at a complete loss as to how any of this make sense.

I'll give you a clue: the answer starts with D and ends with D.

You'd think someone would say "if your DM rules enter and move are the same thing, you can do this"!

Sounds like something I'd say.

It led to a heated argument with my players. Which I abdicated, I mean, if they feel this strongly about it, that can be the rule of the day.

That was a good call. I hope your players don't always bust out the rulebook when things don't go their way, though. That's a whole new level of annoying.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Forced Movement only exempts you from AoOs. Anything else, especially the inconsistency of 'moves into' or 'enters' is just Natural Language resulting in inconsistent chaos as usual and apparently as intended.

 

[Hussar]

you say that as if it were a benefit that every table has to hash out what the rules mean by themselves

This is what rulings not rules means. You folks insisted on this. Hell minor clarity of Command causes thousand post threads.

 

[James Gasik]

Apparently the argument goes thusly:

"There is movement and there is forced movement.

If a rule refers to the subject moving then it refers to then using their Movement as defined in the combat rules.

If a rule refers to a subject being moved then that is forced movement, and encompasses any sort of movement that does not involve the subject using its Movement as defined in the combat rules. Such as falling, being dragged, and being pushed.

As for entering, that doesn't care about Movement. Whether or not you moved into the area is irrelevant, all that matters is that you are now in it."

Is this a valid argument? Because the more I research this, the less certain I am my players were right. I wish I could find the exact official post they gave me to support their point (the ones I quoted above that I found don't feel very cut and dry).

 

[TiQuinn]

This is what rulings not rules means. You folks insisted on this. Hell minor clarity of Command causes thousand post threads.

Because some people don’t have a problem with it.