D&D 5E Monk Shadow Step: How are you running it as a DM?

Arial Black

Adventurer
'Seeing an area of shadow' does not require you to be able to see in the dark. You can locate where that dark area is just by seeing the light areas around it.

Of course, not being able to see what is in the target square carries its own hazards...!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CapnZapp

Legend
Which in a dungeon with torches would be almost all the time right with constant shadows all over the place (including next to people)? It sounds like the DM is going to be answering a lot of questions about lighting in all the time.
That is the problem for me, constant questions and judgement calls.


That's why you hand over a d6 to the player and tell him to answer his own questions... ;)
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I rule if there is a light source and something to block that source there is a shadow i.e the sun shining behind a house you get a shadow in the pitch black dungeon you don't.
A fine houserule, just as long as you are aware it is a houserule.

While the name of the ability has the word "shadow" in it, that has no bearing on its function by RAW. The rules simply mention areas of dim light or darkness, so 'porting around in pitch black dungeons is completely within the rule. (The "that you can see", however, might still allow you to rule a lightsource is needed. I mean, you can rule whatever you want, but "allow" in the sense that consensus allows you to make a ruling without entering houserule territory. Myself, I prefer to interprete the "that you can see" clause to mean "to which you have line of sight" so I don't have to answer deep philosophical questions on whether you can actually see darkness at all ;) )

Generally any area of dim-light or darkness is a shadow of some sort.
As your personal opinion or ruling, this is fine. Do be aware, however, that some DMs will rule that given a sufficiently thick cloud cover, there are no shadows regardless of whether that light is considered bright or dim.

I stick to the "dim-light or darkness" rule because it makes the ability generally useless in a lot of situations. If there is not a specific area of dim-light the monk can't use it. The monk in my party is a wood-elf so she has dark vision to 60' but a human shadow monk would not be able to shadow step to an area of complete darkness because of that pesky "that you can see" clause.
Again, please don't assume your personal rulings are universal. You stick to that rule because you rule it generally useless in a lot of situations. It is you who rule that the "that you can see" clause is "pesky".

After all, can you see darkness? How far "into" darkness can you see? Would a human monk be restricted to just 'porting into the first 5 ft space of darkness (along the outer edge of the light source's dim light)?

Not saying there is a right or wrong way to answer these questions (so please, no need to actually provide any answers). Just pointing out that it's hard to judge others for using houserules in an edition which continually requires yourself to make rulings all the time, easily making you fall into what others might percieve as houserule territory yourself.

I myself prefer to distance myself from close ties to "reality". Making judgement calls about shadows and darkness only makes the game harder and slower to run. Besides, the ability is clearly magical anyway, so why obsess over "reality". Much better to just allow the player to point to the map and teleport to any area of dim light and darkness within range.

Or (as I've already said) for areas where lightning isn't clearly marked on the map, roll a die: 1-3 = area is brightly lit, 4-6 = area is shadowy (dimly lit or outright darkness).
 

Uller

Adventurer
As your personal opinion or ruling, this is fine. Do be aware, however, that some DMs will rule that given a sufficiently thick cloud cover, there are no shadows regardless of whether that light is considered bright or dim.
I don't think it is my personal opinion or ruling that dim-light or darkness is generally the result of a shadow. Other than magic or being too far away from any star to be illuminated at all or being in another universe where there is no light at all, I can't think of any instance where dim-light or darkness is not a shadow on some scale. Dim-light due to cloud cover is not an area with no shadows. It _IS_ a shadow. Which is why I stated that I just stick to the "crunch" part of the rule. You can shadow step from one area of dim-light or darkness to another area of the same if you can see it. Not an opinion. Not a house rule.

Again, please don't assume your personal rulings are universal. You stick to that rule because you rule it generally useless in a lot of situations. It is you who rule that the "that you can see" clause is "pesky".

Ummm...No. I don't rule that it is "pesky". It is part of the rule. It says so right there in it. If you can't see your target location, you can't teleport to it. So you can't teleport into magical darkness, for instance, even if you have darkvision. You can't teleport through a solid door.
 


Uller

Adventurer
Go back and look at the post of mine you were quoting. Either I'm bad at english or you completely missed what I was saying because I was advising to follow the crunch part of the RAW and not worry about light sources and shadows.

You were telling me this was a houserule then saying to rule it exactly as I advised. So yeah...talk about missing the point.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EN World mobile app
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Go back and look at the post of mine you were quoting. Either I'm bad at english or you completely missed what I was saying because I was advising to follow the crunch part of the RAW and not worry about light sources and shadows.

You were telling me this was a houserule then saying to rule it exactly as I advised. So yeah...talk about missing the point.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EN World mobile app
No - I made a light attempt at showing you how almost everything you took for granted being RAW could also be construed as rulings or even houserules (or even philosophically impossible conundrums :p)

I did that because I found it mildy funny that you object to Azurewraith (I believe it was) while yourself doing the same thing; that is involving rulings and houserules.

My point is that I believe the areas about stealth and illumination are especially bad choices to have "my rules are better (more RAW) than yours" arguments over...
 



nswanson27

First Post
If you're worried about balance... yes it is very good, but they aren't using their martial arts or other bonus action abilities either on that turn.
 

Remove ads

Top