15

The description of the earth tremor spell says:

You cause a tremor in the ground within range. Each creature other than you in that area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage and is knocked prone. If the ground in that area is loose earth or stone, it becomes difficult terrain until cleared, with each 5-foot-diameter portion requiring at least 1 minute to clear by hand.

My players argued that the area affected would be the ground, and thus flying or hovering creatures wouldn't be affected by this spell. If it was meant to affect creatures over the ground, it would say 10-ft cube in its range/area description.

Does this interpretation seem right? Or there is something 'more RAW' we've missed that says otherwise?

V2Blast
  • 49,864
  • 10
  • 220
  • 304
Vylix
  • 32,541
  • 17
  • 144
  • 288

1 Answers1

30

Your players are right

It affects “the ground within range” (10 feet) causing damage to creatures “in that area”. It does not affect the air.

Dale M
  • 210,673
  • 42
  • 528
  • 889
  • 2
    By that logic, it should only affect burrowing creatures, since it specifies creatures with*in* range. – Miniman Nov 08 '19 at 02:02
  • 3
    The characters are in direct contact with the effect, though. Direct as in "the gravity of the world pushes them toward it", as opposed to a character standing near a fireball - the gravity does not push him toward the explosion. – 3C273 Nov 08 '19 at 02:14
  • 1
    If you want to get technical on the spell, "You cause a tremor in the ground within range. Each creature other than you in that area". The only effect to people standing on the ground in the area would be the difficult terrain if it happens, it specifically states you must be in the ground to take damage... I think it's quite reasonable for a DM to rule "stuff is happening in the area, everything is effected even if you were hovering just above the ground" – Tim Nov 08 '19 at 11:22
  • 5
    "In that area" does not imply "in the ground" in plain English, which is how 5e rules are intended to be interpreted. This answer is very reasonable. One could potentially interpret "in that area" to also cover some air space above the ground (I'd be somewhat inclined to do this in an enclosed area or one with tall structures where debris might be flying through the air), but interpreting it as only "inside the ground"/"underground" is ridiculous. – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Nov 08 '19 at 13:41
  • 6
    @Miniman: That is not a semantically valid reading of the word "within". It does not mean "in the ground", it means "in the area". What is relevant though is if there's a burrowing depth at which the tremors can be avoided. – Flater Nov 08 '19 at 14:33
  • 1
    @R..As written it's not about implication. The sentence containing the statement "in that area" directly follows the one specifying what that area is, which is stated as "in the ground" within the spell's range. The point is that the players are not categorically "right". It's written a little strangely at best, and I believe there is plenty of wiggle room for a DM to read it differently and not be outright "wrong". Earthquake https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/earthquake specifically says it affects creatures "on the ground", tremor does not - it isn't as "plain English" as it could be. – Tim Nov 08 '19 at 15:40
  • 1
    @Tim That really only works if you're suggesting that a tremor in the ground wouldn't reach/affect the surface of the ground. It's not that the spell causes direct, primary damage, it's primary effect is the tremor which causes a secondary effect of violently knocking things over. I'm also not clear on what a tremor on only the surface of the ground would entail, were the spell to be written that way. – Upper_Case Nov 08 '19 at 18:34
  • @Flater Yes, "in the area". Since this answer says it that the area is the ground, "in the area" would mean "in the ground". – Miniman Nov 08 '19 at 22:12
  • @Miniman "the ground within that range (or area)" does not mean the same as "there is nothing but ground in that range (or area)". If the water in my cup is boiling, that's not the same as saying there is nothing but boiling water in my cup. – Flater Nov 08 '19 at 22:14
  • @Tim: "The ground in the area" is not the same as "the area is (only) in the ground". The ground in the area leaves it open as to whether they may be other things in that area as well (e.g. whatever is above the ground) – Flater Nov 08 '19 at 22:17
  • @Flater Your cup example isn't remotely related, but I'll go along with it - if the water in your cup is boiling, that doesn't say anything about water not in your cup that is touching your cup. – Miniman Nov 08 '19 at 22:19
  • @Miniman: That is a non-sequitur. Just because the water (ground) in the cup (area) is boiling (trembling) does not mean that the cup (area) only contains boiling water (trembling ground). What's outside of the cup (area) is completely irrelevant to the Earth Tremor spell as the spell only describes what happens in the area, not outside of it. – Flater Nov 08 '19 at 22:25
  • @Upper_Case-StopHarmingMonica Earthquake says creatures on the ground take damage. No other spell does damage to creatures standing "on the area", such as https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/wall-of-thorns - simply touching the area does no damage, such as walking on top of the wall, or in this case simply being on the ground where the tremor is. Given the poor wording in this spell, I'm just saying a DM is not outright wrong to say "the area" extends beyond the ground itself. It would be also super simple to rule or for an errata to add "each creature on the ground in that area.." – Tim Nov 21 '19 at 04:10