Mixing
Does a creature have to make the Prismatic Wall's layer saves if it's forcibly moved there?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Many areas of effect, like wall of fire, do damage to creatures when they enter it.
One side of the wall deals 5d8 fire damage to a creature that [...] enters the wall for the first time on a turn.
That wording seems to imply that the creature takes the damage even if it was unwilling to move there (such as if pushed by a Repelling Blast or grappled and moved there).
However, prismatic wall's wording is different :
When a creature attempts to reach into or pass through the wall, it does so one layer at a time through all the wall’s layers. As it passes or reaches through each layer, the creature must make a Dexterity saving throw or be affected by that layer’s properties as described below.
Here, the words "attempts to" are used, instead of just "enters".
So, if a creature is unwillingly moved into a prismatic wall, does it have to make the saving throw(s)?
dnd-5e spells forced-movement
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
14.8k23597
asked 2 hours ago
Gael L
7,048124125
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Many areas of effect, like wall of fire, do damage to creatures when they enter it.
One side of the wall deals 5d8 fire damage to a creature that [...] enters the wall for the first time on a turn.
That wording seems to imply that the creature takes the damage even if it was unwilling to move there (such as if pushed by a Repelling Blast or grappled and moved there).
However, prismatic wall's wording is different :
When a creature attempts to reach into or pass through the wall, it does so one layer at a time through all the wall’s layers. As it passes or reaches through each layer, the creature must make a Dexterity saving throw or be affected by that layer’s properties as described below.
Here, the words "attempts to" are used, instead of just "enters".
So, if a creature is unwillingly moved into a prismatic wall, does it have to make the saving throw(s)?
dnd-5e spells forced-movement
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
14.8k23597
asked 2 hours ago
Gael L
7,048124125
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Many areas of effect, like wall of fire, do damage to creatures when they enter it.
One side of the wall deals 5d8 fire damage to a creature that [...] enters the wall for the first time on a turn.
That wording seems to imply that the creature takes the damage even if it was unwilling to move there (such as if pushed by a Repelling Blast or grappled and moved there).
However, prismatic wall's wording is different :
When a creature attempts to reach into or pass through the wall, it does so one layer at a time through all the wall’s layers. As it passes or reaches through each layer, the creature must make a Dexterity saving throw or be affected by that layer’s properties as described below.
Here, the words "attempts to" are used, instead of just "enters".
So, if a creature is unwillingly moved into a prismatic wall, does it have to make the saving throw(s)?
dnd-5e spells forced-movement
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
14.8k23597
asked 2 hours ago
Gael L
7,048124125
Many areas of effect, like wall of fire, do damage to creatures when they enter it.
One side of the wall deals 5d8 fire damage to a creature that [...] enters the wall for the first time on a turn.
That wording seems to imply that the creature takes the damage even if it was unwilling to move there (such as if pushed by a Repelling Blast or grappled and moved there).
However, prismatic wall's wording is different :
When a creature attempts to reach into or pass through the wall, it does so one layer at a time through all the wall’s layers. As it passes or reaches through each layer, the creature must make a Dexterity saving throw or be affected by that layer’s properties as described below.
Here, the words "attempts to" are used, instead of just "enters".
So, if a creature is unwillingly moved into a prismatic wall, does it have to make the saving throw(s)?
dnd-5e spells forced-movement
dnd-5e spells forced-movement
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
14.8k23597
asked 2 hours ago
Gael L
7,048124125
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
14.8k23597
asked 2 hours ago
Gael L
7,048124125
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
14.8k23597
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
14.8k23597
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
14.8k23597
14.8k23597
asked 2 hours ago
Gael L
7,048124125
asked 2 hours ago
Gael L
7,048124125
asked 2 hours ago
Gael L
7,048124125
7,048124125
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Creatures can be thrown through the walls, but would have to make the saves one at a time as they attempt to pass through them.
I believe the wording is made in that way because a creature might not pass through all of the walls, because they're stopped short by an effect, leaving the rest of the walls up. I don't believe that the wording means you must intend to go through the walls to be affected by them.
You make the saving throws one at a time, as you pass through it. You might pass through every wall, eventually, but only one at a time. Imagine time slowing down for each save, because the effect from the first might prevent you from traveling through the second.
answered 2 hours ago
Austin Donley
1,089520
I would recommend you rephrase this a little. Lead with that earlier effects may negate the need to make later saves as I think it's the heart of your argument (and a good one) but it's at the end so it's coming late.
– Pyrotechnical
1 hour ago
This JC quote might help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Yes, they would need to make saving throws
In this case the word "attempts" is merely to convey the fact that the creature may not actually succeed in passing through the layers due to the effects of the spell.
In a more general sense, the only place where willing and unwilling movement are treated differently is the Opportunity Attack rule. This rule specifically states that
You don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when
someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or
reaction
However, this rule is specifically for Opportunity Attacks and there is no equivalent for a creature being forcibly moved through a spell effect that requires a Saving Throw on entering or leaving the effect. So by default, they would need to make the save(s).
answered 2 hours ago
PJRZ
5,2351331
I think the OA rule is worth mentioning as a possible reason for thinking that willing and unwilling movement 'work' differently. But you're right about "attempts". I will add that in.
– PJRZ
1 hour ago
1
Your phrasing is slightly inaccurate; opportunity attacks make no mention of "willing" movement, only whether you are moved without using your movement, action, or reaction. However, booming blade does explicitly mention "willing" movement. This is why dissonant whispers triggers opportunity attacks but not the booming blade extra damage: it forces the creature to use its reaction to move.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
There's a JC comment somewhere where he says that, unless the spell explicitly says "willingly", then it doesn't have to be.
– Daniel Zastoupil
1 hour ago
As others have mentioned, OAs don't care if the movement is willing or not. This JC quote might also help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Creatures can be thrown through the walls, but would have to make the saves one at a time as they attempt to pass through them.
I believe the wording is made in that way because a creature might not pass through all of the walls, because they're stopped short by an effect, leaving the rest of the walls up. I don't believe that the wording means you must intend to go through the walls to be affected by them.
You make the saving throws one at a time, as you pass through it. You might pass through every wall, eventually, but only one at a time. Imagine time slowing down for each save, because the effect from the first might prevent you from traveling through the second.
answered 2 hours ago
Austin Donley
1,089520
I would recommend you rephrase this a little. Lead with that earlier effects may negate the need to make later saves as I think it's the heart of your argument (and a good one) but it's at the end so it's coming late.
– Pyrotechnical
1 hour ago
This JC quote might help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Creatures can be thrown through the walls, but would have to make the saves one at a time as they attempt to pass through them.
I believe the wording is made in that way because a creature might not pass through all of the walls, because they're stopped short by an effect, leaving the rest of the walls up. I don't believe that the wording means you must intend to go through the walls to be affected by them.
You make the saving throws one at a time, as you pass through it. You might pass through every wall, eventually, but only one at a time. Imagine time slowing down for each save, because the effect from the first might prevent you from traveling through the second.
answered 2 hours ago
Austin Donley
1,089520
I would recommend you rephrase this a little. Lead with that earlier effects may negate the need to make later saves as I think it's the heart of your argument (and a good one) but it's at the end so it's coming late.
– Pyrotechnical
1 hour ago
This JC quote might help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Creatures can be thrown through the walls, but would have to make the saves one at a time as they attempt to pass through them.
I believe the wording is made in that way because a creature might not pass through all of the walls, because they're stopped short by an effect, leaving the rest of the walls up. I don't believe that the wording means you must intend to go through the walls to be affected by them.
You make the saving throws one at a time, as you pass through it. You might pass through every wall, eventually, but only one at a time. Imagine time slowing down for each save, because the effect from the first might prevent you from traveling through the second.
answered 2 hours ago
Austin Donley
1,089520
Creatures can be thrown through the walls, but would have to make the saves one at a time as they attempt to pass through them.
I believe the wording is made in that way because a creature might not pass through all of the walls, because they're stopped short by an effect, leaving the rest of the walls up. I don't believe that the wording means you must intend to go through the walls to be affected by them.
You make the saving throws one at a time, as you pass through it. You might pass through every wall, eventually, but only one at a time. Imagine time slowing down for each save, because the effect from the first might prevent you from traveling through the second.
answered 2 hours ago
Austin Donley
1,089520
edited 34 mins ago
answered 2 hours ago
Austin Donley
1,089520
answered 2 hours ago
Austin Donley
1,089520
answered 2 hours ago
Austin Donley
1,089520
1,089520
I would recommend you rephrase this a little. Lead with that earlier effects may negate the need to make later saves as I think it's the heart of your argument (and a good one) but it's at the end so it's coming late.
– Pyrotechnical
1 hour ago
This JC quote might help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I would recommend you rephrase this a little. Lead with that earlier effects may negate the need to make later saves as I think it's the heart of your argument (and a good one) but it's at the end so it's coming late.
– Pyrotechnical
1 hour ago
This JC quote might help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
3 mins ago
I would recommend you rephrase this a little. Lead with that earlier effects may negate the need to make later saves as I think it's the heart of your argument (and a good one) but it's at the end so it's coming late.
– Pyrotechnical
1 hour ago
I would recommend you rephrase this a little. Lead with that earlier effects may negate the need to make later saves as I think it's the heart of your argument (and a good one) but it's at the end so it's coming late.
– Pyrotechnical
1 hour ago
This JC quote might help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
3 mins ago
This JC quote might help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Yes, they would need to make saving throws
In this case the word "attempts" is merely to convey the fact that the creature may not actually succeed in passing through the layers due to the effects of the spell.
In a more general sense, the only place where willing and unwilling movement are treated differently is the Opportunity Attack rule. This rule specifically states that
You don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when
someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or
reaction
However, this rule is specifically for Opportunity Attacks and there is no equivalent for a creature being forcibly moved through a spell effect that requires a Saving Throw on entering or leaving the effect. So by default, they would need to make the save(s).
answered 2 hours ago
PJRZ
5,2351331
I think the OA rule is worth mentioning as a possible reason for thinking that willing and unwilling movement 'work' differently. But you're right about "attempts". I will add that in.
– PJRZ
1 hour ago
1
Your phrasing is slightly inaccurate; opportunity attacks make no mention of "willing" movement, only whether you are moved without using your movement, action, or reaction. However, booming blade does explicitly mention "willing" movement. This is why dissonant whispers triggers opportunity attacks but not the booming blade extra damage: it forces the creature to use its reaction to move.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
There's a JC comment somewhere where he says that, unless the spell explicitly says "willingly", then it doesn't have to be.
– Daniel Zastoupil
1 hour ago
As others have mentioned, OAs don't care if the movement is willing or not. This JC quote might also help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Yes, they would need to make saving throws
In this case the word "attempts" is merely to convey the fact that the creature may not actually succeed in passing through the layers due to the effects of the spell.
In a more general sense, the only place where willing and unwilling movement are treated differently is the Opportunity Attack rule. This rule specifically states that
You don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when
someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or
reaction
However, this rule is specifically for Opportunity Attacks and there is no equivalent for a creature being forcibly moved through a spell effect that requires a Saving Throw on entering or leaving the effect. So by default, they would need to make the save(s).
answered 2 hours ago
PJRZ
5,2351331
I think the OA rule is worth mentioning as a possible reason for thinking that willing and unwilling movement 'work' differently. But you're right about "attempts". I will add that in.
– PJRZ
1 hour ago
1
Your phrasing is slightly inaccurate; opportunity attacks make no mention of "willing" movement, only whether you are moved without using your movement, action, or reaction. However, booming blade does explicitly mention "willing" movement. This is why dissonant whispers triggers opportunity attacks but not the booming blade extra damage: it forces the creature to use its reaction to move.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
There's a JC comment somewhere where he says that, unless the spell explicitly says "willingly", then it doesn't have to be.
– Daniel Zastoupil
1 hour ago
As others have mentioned, OAs don't care if the movement is willing or not. This JC quote might also help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Yes, they would need to make saving throws
In this case the word "attempts" is merely to convey the fact that the creature may not actually succeed in passing through the layers due to the effects of the spell.
In a more general sense, the only place where willing and unwilling movement are treated differently is the Opportunity Attack rule. This rule specifically states that
You don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when
someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or
reaction
However, this rule is specifically for Opportunity Attacks and there is no equivalent for a creature being forcibly moved through a spell effect that requires a Saving Throw on entering or leaving the effect. So by default, they would need to make the save(s).
answered 2 hours ago
PJRZ
5,2351331
Yes, they would need to make saving throws
In this case the word "attempts" is merely to convey the fact that the creature may not actually succeed in passing through the layers due to the effects of the spell.
In a more general sense, the only place where willing and unwilling movement are treated differently is the Opportunity Attack rule. This rule specifically states that
You don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when
someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or
reaction
However, this rule is specifically for Opportunity Attacks and there is no equivalent for a creature being forcibly moved through a spell effect that requires a Saving Throw on entering or leaving the effect. So by default, they would need to make the save(s).
answered 2 hours ago
PJRZ
5,2351331
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
PJRZ
5,2351331
answered 2 hours ago
PJRZ
5,2351331
answered 2 hours ago
PJRZ
5,2351331
5,2351331
I think the OA rule is worth mentioning as a possible reason for thinking that willing and unwilling movement 'work' differently. But you're right about "attempts". I will add that in.
– PJRZ
1 hour ago
1
Your phrasing is slightly inaccurate; opportunity attacks make no mention of "willing" movement, only whether you are moved without using your movement, action, or reaction. However, booming blade does explicitly mention "willing" movement. This is why dissonant whispers triggers opportunity attacks but not the booming blade extra damage: it forces the creature to use its reaction to move.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
There's a JC comment somewhere where he says that, unless the spell explicitly says "willingly", then it doesn't have to be.
– Daniel Zastoupil
1 hour ago
As others have mentioned, OAs don't care if the movement is willing or not. This JC quote might also help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I think the OA rule is worth mentioning as a possible reason for thinking that willing and unwilling movement 'work' differently. But you're right about "attempts". I will add that in.
– PJRZ
1 hour ago
1
Your phrasing is slightly inaccurate; opportunity attacks make no mention of "willing" movement, only whether you are moved without using your movement, action, or reaction. However, booming blade does explicitly mention "willing" movement. This is why dissonant whispers triggers opportunity attacks but not the booming blade extra damage: it forces the creature to use its reaction to move.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
There's a JC comment somewhere where he says that, unless the spell explicitly says "willingly", then it doesn't have to be.
– Daniel Zastoupil
1 hour ago
As others have mentioned, OAs don't care if the movement is willing or not. This JC quote might also help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
4 mins ago
I think the OA rule is worth mentioning as a possible reason for thinking that willing and unwilling movement 'work' differently. But you're right about "attempts". I will add that in.
– PJRZ
1 hour ago
I think the OA rule is worth mentioning as a possible reason for thinking that willing and unwilling movement 'work' differently. But you're right about "attempts". I will add that in.
– PJRZ
1 hour ago
1
1
Your phrasing is slightly inaccurate; opportunity attacks make no mention of "willing" movement, only whether you are moved without using your movement, action, or reaction. However, booming blade does explicitly mention "willing" movement. This is why dissonant whispers triggers opportunity attacks but not the booming blade extra damage: it forces the creature to use its reaction to move.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
Your phrasing is slightly inaccurate; opportunity attacks make no mention of "willing" movement, only whether you are moved without using your movement, action, or reaction. However, booming blade does explicitly mention "willing" movement. This is why dissonant whispers triggers opportunity attacks but not the booming blade extra damage: it forces the creature to use its reaction to move.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
There's a JC comment somewhere where he says that, unless the spell explicitly says "willingly", then it doesn't have to be.
– Daniel Zastoupil
1 hour ago
There's a JC comment somewhere where he says that, unless the spell explicitly says "willingly", then it doesn't have to be.
– Daniel Zastoupil
1 hour ago
As others have mentioned, OAs don't care if the movement is willing or not. This JC quote might also help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
4 mins ago
As others have mentioned, OAs don't care if the movement is willing or not. This JC quote might also help: "A spell specifies whether a target must be willing. If it doesn't specify that, the target doesn't need to be willing."
– Rubiksmoose
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f132101%2fdoes-a-creature-have-to-make-the-prismatic-walls-layer-saves-if-its-forcibly-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password