Air Geyser Clarification

[Omega_Atlas]

So the other day I have a player character cast the spell on a Golem that is 12 ft tall in a room with a 15 ft tall ceiling. The player being a lvl 6 Druid interpreted the spell as, the golem would take 2d6 points of bludgeoning damage, be flung upwards and hit the ceiling 3 ft above it's head and take 3d6 points of damage because he would have been flung upwards 30 ft and take that much of fall damage, then fall back to the ground taking an additional 1d6 more of damage.

I found it hard to believe the golem would take 3d6 points of damage from moving 3 ft up and then take another 1d6 points for falling back down 3 ft. I advised the player that I wouldn't allow that, and instead I would fling the golem upwards, pancaking it to the ceiling. Then it would fall down and take 1d6 points of damage and be left prone on the ground.

The player was not happy with this compromise. Did I make the right call? Or perhaps did I misinterpret the spell?

[MrCharisma]

The spells says: "the force of the air deals 2d6 bludgeoning damage". This means it has nothing to do with how far the golem moves, it takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage (half on a successful save).

As for moving the target, this is a bit less clear. You'd be within your rights to say that since it only moves 5 feet it takes no damage from hitting the ceiling, and likewise no damage from falling. It's possible to interpret that differently though, so giving it 1d6 falling damage wouldn't break the game.

EDIT: I think i misread your post. From what I can tell there are 2 possible ingerpretations to this spell. You believe one and your player believes the other. It's probably worth talking with the group and writing down what you decide for the sake of consistency.

[Weables]

honestly, this is the point of DM adjudication. When things dont make sense (you cant fling someone 30 feet up in a 15 foot high room) the DM is supposed to manage things like this. I think it's pretty reasonable, and would have done something similar as a GM.

But its not so much a rules clarification as a reiteration of rule 0. the DM is there for things like this. You didnt misinterpret the spell, its supposed to throw someone up. In this case there, there was nowhere to throw them. Perfectly reasonable to rule this way, or in the players favor. in the end, this is a case up to you, with no real official rules, imo