By RAW, Wall of Fire does 15d8 to creatures that end their turn within the wall.

[Merudo]

The text of Wall of Fire states,

One side of the wall, selected by you when you cast this spell, deals 5d8 fire damage to each creature that ends its turn within 10 feet of that side or inside the wall. A creature takes the same damage when it enters the wall for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there.

This paragraph described four conditions that result in damage:

1. A creature ends its turn within 10 feet of the chosen side. This includes the wall itself, as it is only 1 foot thick.
2. A creature ends its turn inside the wall.
3. A creature enters the wall for the first time on a turn.
4. A creature ends its turn "there" (meaning inside the wall).

If a creature stays in the wall for a full round, it takes the damage three times, because it satisfies conditions 1), 2), and 4).

Which means the creature takes 15d6 damage.

[jaappleton]

I believe there’s a rule somewhere where creatures can’t take multiple instances of damage on the same turn from the same source?

[sithlordnergal]

There is, its there to prevent that sort of thing from happening. Otherwise Moonbeam would get out of hand.

[MaxWilson]

I believe there’s a rule somewhere where creatures can’t take multiple instances of damage on the same turn from the same source?

Nope, no such rule that I've ever seen. You're probably thinking of the rule that prevents instances of the same effect from stacking if their durations overlap, but there's no similar rule for damage-on-the-same-turn.

[OldTrees1]

1, 2, and 4 are the exact same condition.
1 & 2 is the affected area not 2 separate triggers.
4 is repeating 1&2 as context for what damage to apply in case 3.

So standing in the wall does 1 instance of damage.

You can take damage more than once but it requires more. If I move into the wall (to attack the caster on the other side) and end inside the wall, then I take 2 instances of damage.

[jh12]

I would say that 2 & 4 are the same thing and almost certainly shouldn't stack. [Unless 2 is simply there to clarify that if you create a Ring of Fire that's hotter on the inside, they only take 5d8 damage despite being surrounded]

And 1 wouldn't apply because the creature is not on the side of the wall that takes damage. The damage zone extends out 10 feet from the face of the wall but only on the side of the wall you designate. Otherwise it would extend 10 feet on one side, and at least 9 feet on the other side, making it rather pointless to designate a side.

So I would say just 5d8.

[Merudo]

I would say that 2 & 4 are the same thing and almost certainly shouldn't stack. [Unless 2 is simply there to clarify that if you create a Ring of Fire that's hotter on the inside, they only take 5d8 damage despite being surrounded]

2 & 4 are from two different sentences mentioning damage - I don't see how ignoring one of them is acceptable.

The damage zone extends out 10 feet from the face of the wall but only on the side of the wall you designate.

No.

The text is clear: you take damage if you end your turn within 10 feet of the chosen side.

The damage zone extends out 10 feet in both directions.

[Keeganwilson]

You can argue whatever broken logic you want dude. But the spells damage both raw and rai is 5d8. If you play it any other way you'd be cheating. You're not doing 50 average damage for a 4th level spell.

[Tanarii]

No.

The text is clear: you take damage if you end your turn within 10 feet of the chosen side.

The damage zone extends out 10 feet in both directions.

Wait, what? The intent is pretty clearly you choose a side, and it goes out ten feet from that one side. Not that it goes through the wall and out the other side.

[DrKerosene]

I read the spell as “if 1, 3, or 4 occurs, then apply 5d8 fire damage (usually at the end of) that turn”.

And 2 is just clarifying 1, so people don’t think standing inside the wall is somehow safe.

I figure that 3 is probably so you don’t forget to apply damage. Maybe an anti-mage charger feature.

[Zalabim]

Evard's Black Tentacles is the more interesting case of this. "When a creature enters the affected area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, the creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 bludgeoning damage and be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends. A creature that starts its turn in the area and is already restrained by the tentacles takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage." There's no "instead" there. The second condition is more specific than the first, but it never says they're exclusive. A creature that's restrained by EBT effectively faces 6d6 bludgeoning damage, Dexterity save to take half damage.

[Merudo]

Wait, what? The intent is pretty clearly you choose a side, and it goes out ten feet from that one side. Not that it goes through the wall and out the other side.

The intent is not relevant for RAW. Within 10' is within 10'.

[Aquillion]

Wait, what? The intent is pretty clearly you choose a side, and it goes out ten feet from that one side. Not that it goes through the wall and out the other side.

Yeah, if you go by the "within 10 feet" wording, the circle version cooks all the creatures inside, even if you try to cast it directed "outwards", because they're within 10 feet of the outside. Clearly that's not intended. (Also, this interpretation would make the choice of side completely meaningless, since it would only shift the "cooking range" by one foot.)

I could see how a very literal-minded reading of the RAW could come to that conclusion, but it's on par with 3e's "drowning can heal you" reading - amusing to discuss on forums, but obviously not intended and clearly not something that should ever be used in a game.

The intent is clearly that the "within ten feet", coupled with the "other side does no damage", means that there's a 10-foot area sweeping out from the edge of the wall that you chose, which also does damage.

(That said, I do think it's legitimately ambiguous whether a creature that moves into the wall and then ends their turn there is supposed to take damage twice. By RAW it looks like they do, and that interpretation isn't necessarily absurd the way the side-distance silliness is. Logically someone who decides to plop themselves down inside the wall should take more damage than someone who dashes through it.)

[Merudo]

Evard's Black Tentacles is the more interesting case of this. "When a creature enters the affected area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, the creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 bludgeoning damage and be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends. A creature that starts its turn in the area and is already restrained by the tentacles takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage." There's no "instead" there. The second condition is more specific than the first, but it never says they're exclusive. A creature that's restrained by EBT effectively faces 6d6 bludgeoning damage, Dexterity save to take half damage.

After reading the spell again, I can't imagine it working any other way. Very interesting indeed.

[Yora]

If a creature is not restrained, it takes 3d6 damage and becomes restrained.
if a creature is already restrained, it just takes 3d6 damage.

It does not say "instead" but it does not say "additional" either.

[qube]

2 & 4 are from two different sentences mentioning damage - I don't see how ignoring one of them is acceptable.

Because that's how the rules work. Proof, you ask? OK.

On the one hand

... His attack bonus is his Strength modifier (+3) plus his proficiency bonus (+2), for a total of +5. The battleaxe deals 1d8 slashing damage, and Bruenor adds his Strength modifier to the damage when he hits, for a total of 1d8 + 3 slashing damage. ...
~~ PHB, page 15.

On the other hand

You add your Strength modifier to your attack roll and your damage roll when attacking with a melee weapon such as ...
~~ PHB, page 176

When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll— to the damage.
~~ PHB, page 196

Even more - even if you hopld fast that that's how the rules work ... that's your interpretation of it. RAW is rules as written, not Rules As Written, and then applied by someone who interpretes them the way I do.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Because that's how the rules work. Proof, you ask? OK.

On the one hand

... His attack bonus is his Strength modifier (+3) plus his proficiency bonus (+2), for a total of +5. The battleaxe deals 1d8 slashing damage, and Bruenor adds his Strength modifier to the damage when he hits, for a total of 1d8 + 3 slashing damage. ...
~~ PHB, page 15.

On the other hand

You add your Strength modifier to your attack roll and your damage roll when attacking with a melee weapon such as ...
~~ PHB, page 176

When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll— to the damage.
~~ PHB, page 196

Even more - even if you hopld fast that that's how the rules work ... that's your interpretation of it. RAW is rules as written, not Rules As Written, and then applied by someone who interpretes them the way I do.

There is a difference between your example and the spell discretion.
You have here 3 different instances of the same rule. The spell have 3 different rules for its damage.


To the OP, it look like the spell is intended to deal one instance of damage for getting into the wall and another one for staying in it(or 10 feat of it).
So 10d8 for the monster stupid enough to walk through a wall of fire and stop in it/start walking past it to the side with the 10 ft damage and stop within 10 ft.

[qube]

There is a difference between your example and the spell discretion.
You have here 3 different instances of the same rule. The spell have 3 different rules for its damage.

Perhaps - but it was only to debunk the OP's idea that different sentences inherently implies it applies multiple times.

As proven in RAW, that's not (always?) the case. (multiple RAW sentences adding STR mod, yet the example in RAW shows it's added only once)


As such - the OP's argument, that in this case, multiple sentences does mean it aplies multiple times - is not Rules As Written, but Rules As He Interpretes Them.

[Zalabim]

If a creature is not restrained, it takes 3d6 damage and becomes restrained.
if a creature is already restrained, it just takes 3d6 damage.

It does not say "instead" but it does not say "additional" either.

In the first case, it does not say creatures that are not restrained. It says each creature. Any creature. All creatures.
In the second case it is not additional. It is not attached to the saving throw. This damage is from already being restrained, not from failing the saving throw this turn.

[Lance Tankmen]

The text of Wall of Fire states,



This paragraph described four conditions that result in damage:

1. A creature ends its turn within 10 feet of the chosen side. This includes the wall itself, as it is only 1 foot thick.
2. A creature ends its turn inside the wall.
3. A creature enters the wall for the first time on a turn.
4. A creature ends its turn "there" (meaning inside the wall).

If a creature stays in the wall for a full round, it takes the damage three times, because it satisfies conditions 1), 2), and 4).

Which means the creature takes 15d6 damage.

im like 95% no creature moves at speed of 10ft that requires a wall of fire. buuut yeah i can see 15D8 if its on the side, then ends its turn inside the wall. but i feel most will only take 5d8 then pass through the wall takes 5d8.

[jaappleton]

The intent is not relevant for RAW. Within 10' is within 10'.

This right here?

This single sentence is enough for me to not want to ever sit at the same table as you, ever.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

This right here?

This single sentence is enough for me to not want to ever sit at the same table as you, ever.

Well, RAW is a different play style.

Did you consider it that when you argue online you have no DM to make the call or a table to agree on the rolling?

In that case all you have is the RAW(and sometimes that people call official rolling).

[Chronos]

The intent was almost certainly for the "damage zone" to only extend on one side of the wall, which would mean that the maximum damage would be 10d6, for a creature who for some reason entered the wall and then foolishly stayed in it (though even that is weird; "when a creature enters" triggers are usually paired with "start of turn", not with "end of turn").

But that's not what the rules actually say. As in many other places, they were clumsy with their phrasing, and ended up saying things they didn't mean to say.

[qube]

FYI - since we're talking about RAW: it's not 9 ft in the other direction - it's 10 ft in any direction as long as there's line of effect

A spell’s effect expands in straight lines from the point of Origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of Origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn’t included in the spell’s area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.

What grants cover? Well, according to RAW:

Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles

What does Wall of fire?

You create a wall of fire

But a wall of fire, is obviously, still a wall.


... good luck trying to argue that by RAW line of effect goes inside or through a wall.

[noob]

Perhaps - but it was only to debunk the OP's idea that different sentences inherently implies it applies multiple times.

As proven in RAW, that's not (always?) the case. (multiple RAW sentences adding STR mod, yet the example in RAW shows it's added only once)


As such - the OP's argument, that in this case, multiple sentences does mean it aplies multiple times - is not Rules As Written, but Rules As He Interpretes Them.

except that modifiers you do not have the right to stack multiple modifiers from the same source.
if damage was a modifier then after swinging a sword once at someone swinging it again the next turn would not add damage.
Bull strenght is a modifier so if you cast it on a turn then cast it on the next turn you do not give +8 str.
Damage is fundamentally different from modifiers.
of course if an effect did say "reduce the hit points of the opponents" then trying to apply it multiple times would not stack.

Honestly making firewall deal tons of damage to people which stays in it is not that much silly:you have find a way to keep the target at the same spot first because just casting firewall directly on someone would deal 0 damage(the target have to end its turn within the firewall to get all the 15d6 damage) so then the target just walks away from the firewall and still took no damage.

I mean it is logical that staying within the hottest part of a firewall is bound to hurt more than walking through it or walking away from it.
and casting a firewall on someone deals 0 damage unless the person stays within it until the end of its turn which happens only if the target was utterly unable to move which means you were already beating that target anyway.

With a fire that is so hot it burns you when you are 10 feet away deciding "I am going to stay in the middle of the fire for 6 seconds" should hurt you more than staying 10 feet away from it or running through it(both of the latter expose you to way less heat)

[Tanarii]

The intent is not relevant for RAW. Within 10' is within 10'.

The written rule is the text that is written. But the written rule is relevant only once it has been interpreted by someone.

And my interpretation is that your interpretation clearly isn't the intended one of the written rule. Or in forum acronym terms, my view is your personal RAI of RAW pretty clearly isn't what the writers intended to be the RAI of RAW. But yeah, that's just like my opinion man

[Nhorianscum]

The text of Wall of Fire states,



This paragraph described four conditions that result in damage:

1. A creature ends its turn within 10 feet of the chosen side. This includes the wall itself, as it is only 1 foot thick.
2. A creature ends its turn inside the wall.
3. A creature enters the wall for the first time on a turn.
4. A creature ends its turn "there" (meaning inside the wall).

If a creature stays in the wall for a full round, it takes the damage three times, because it satisfies conditions 1), 2), and 4).

Which means the creature takes 15d6 damage.

Read through the spell again going "whaaaaaat?"...

Yeah it's a valid reading of the RAW that makes WoF not utter trash in some niche but common scenarios.

Good find.

[Merudo]

FYI - since we're talking about RAW: it's not 9 ft in the other direction - it's 10 ft in any direction as long as there's line of effect

A spell’s effect expands in straight lines from the point of Origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of Origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn’t included in the spell’s area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.

What grants cover? Well, according to RAW:

Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles

What does Wall of fire?

You create a wall of fire

But a wall of fire, is obviously, still a wall.

I actually have no problem with this interpretation.

Keep in mind that if we play by your rules, all "Wall" spells give full cover. This makes some of them (Wall of Fire, Wind Wall, Wall of Water, Wall of Light, etc) vastly more useful.

[Yunru]

The written rule is the text that is written. But the written rule is relevant only once it has been interpreted by someone.

And my interpretation is that your interpretation clearly isn't the intended one of the written rule. Or in forum acronym terms, my view is your personal RAI of RAW pretty clearly isn't what the writers intended to be the RAI of RAW. But yeah, that's just like my opinion man

...
But RAI means Rule(s) As Intended. You can't have a personal RAI.

[qube]

@Yunru, some people use RAI as abreviation for RAIT (Rules as interpreted - Rules as (someone) interpretes them)

Quite confusing sometimes :)

I actually have no problem with this interpretation.

Keep in mind that if we play by your rules, all "Wall" spells give full cover. This makes some of them (Wall of Fire, Wind Wall, Wall of Water, Wall of Light, etc) vastly more useful.

They are not an "interpretation", nor are they "my rules" - they are RAW. And also, you might actually care what I ommitted.

Recall when I said "What grants cover? Well, according to RAW "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles"" The next word is of key importance to what you're trying to do:

Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat

Not must, not will, can.

That means, by RAW, as I pointed out, you can't just go around and assume walls don't grant cover (and thus don't blok line of effect)
However, RAW doesn't state all walls grant cover, and thus you can't go assume the opposite, that, for example, wind wall grants cover in RAW.

------
bottom line:

You can't fill in the blanks by whatever you want , and then claim it's RAW.
If RAW leaves a blank, then it's a blank by RAW - not your oppinion, interpretation, of whatever you find best. Blank.

Filling in those blanks, is your DMs job.