D&D 5E Can you use misty step to arrest a fall?

[Paul Farquhar]

There is nothing different, they are reactions, as clearly indicated in both cases:

• "you can use your reaction to deflect"
• "When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction"

This in turn allows one to to interrupt whatever is happening during someone else's turn.



Prove it. Where is it written in the rules ?

Prove fireball doesn't give you immunity to psychic damage.

Deflect Arrows negates attacks because it says it negates attacks. If an ability doesn't say it negates attacks, then it doesn't negate attacks. It has nothing to do with being a reaction, and "interrupt" is not a general mechanic in 5e.

They have wasted their attack exactly the same way that if the opponent had used a shield or deflect missiles.

No, because shield and deflect arrows are specific abilities that cause an attack to miss. If the target teleports away just before you attack it you never make the attack in the first place.

They have declared an attack

"Declare an attack" is not a mechanic in 5e.

, they have target an individual,

Targeting does not use up an attack.

they might even have rolled a hit.

If they have rolled to hit it is too late to teleport away. Either you teleport before the attack roll, in which case the attack in not made because there is no legitimate target for the attack, or you teleport after the attack roll, in which case the attack roll is resolved and may hit. Unlike Shield, teleporting away does not affect attack rolls.

But once again, RAW, nothing prevents someone to use all these as perceivable circumstances that allow one to finish casting a readied spell.

Sure they finish the spell and teleport away. But since the attacker can't target them they can't make an attack roll, they can't use up an attack.

5e is very flexible, I'm just using the very standard rules and wording in there.

Sure. Plus a few rules that are not there.

 

[Horwath]

If the target teleports away just before you attack it you never make the attack in the first place.

This would be very reasonable for melee attack. You still used attackers move to get to you so maybe attacker will be unable to attack you 30ft away or it will chose a target that was not 1st choice.

For ranged, I would say that you can teleport while the arrow is in mid flight, unless you were attacked point blank, like 10-15ft away.

 

[Lyxen]

Prove fireball doesn't give you immunity to psychic damage.

Very easy, because it's not written in the spell description. The rules only do what they say they do.

You, however, are claiming that "Ready an Action does not have the ability to negate an attack." You therefore have to find where the rules say this, good luck, because it's not there.

Deflect Arrows negates attacks because it says it negates attacks.

Wrong, it does not say it, ever. Read the rule.

If an ability doesn't say it negates attacks, then it doesn't negate attacks. It has nothing to do with being a reaction, and "interrupt" is not a general mechanic in 5e.

None of the abilities mentioned here negate attacks, neither shield not deflect missiles. It's not in their description anyway.

No, because shield and deflect arrows are specific abilities that cause an attack to miss. If the target teleports away just before you attack it you never make the attack in the first place.

Yes, he did. Please have a look at the attack sequence, the pre-requisite of which is declaring that you attack someone.

"Declare an attack" is not a mechanic in 5e.

Honestly, you are down to this level ? Fine, declaring that you are using the attack action and then targeting someone as part of the resolution of that attack. But you are still wrong.

Targeting does not use up an attack.

It does. You can only declare a target as part of the resolution of an attack, read the PH. If you are resolving an attack it's because you have declared its use.

If they have rolled to hit it is too late to teleport away.

Once more, read the rules about readied actions. The resolution of the reaction interrupts (without any specification of what it can interrupt, so it's generic) whatever is happening on the other person's turn). There is no limitation. Once more, the rules do what they say they do. If you think that there is some limit, please prove it in the rules.

Either you teleport before the attack roll, in which case the attack in not made because there is no legitimate target for the attack, or you teleport after the attack roll, in which case the attack roll is resolved and may hit. Unlike Shield, teleporting away does not affect attack rolls.

This is just your personal interpretation and nothing in the rules support it. There is not a single sentence in the rules that will support what you say, and once more, the rules only do what they say they do. Don't invent.

Sure they finish the spell and teleport away. But since the attacker can't target them they can't make an attack roll, they can't use up an attack.

See above, as soon as you target someone, you have used your attack. It's part of the attack RESOLUTION sequence. Read it.

Sure. Plus a few rules that are not there.

I'm sorry, but you are the one who has invented many rules, as proven above. I am just applying the very few rules in the book, which do not specify limits on their usage. Please don't invent any that are not in the books just because you think it should be right.

 

[Mallus]

Sure, why not?

Unless your group would have more fun weaponizing the Law of Conservation of Momentum. Which would totally happen if you ruled momentum gets conserved.

 

[clearstream]

Ok, let me address this, broadly.

EVERYTHING that is not magical or described by the lore as different should be assumed to work like the real world. Why? Because the players don't live in the D&D world. They haven't grown up in it and learned all its quirks.

If nothing can be assumed to work the way it does in the real world, the players can become lost in a morass of uncertainty. Does wood float? Do pigs lay eggs? Are metal tipped arrows better than rubber ones? Do more coins weight more than less coins? Is ale toxic? Does the sun or the moon shed heat? Do people need food? Is time 2 dimensional? (yes, btw)

etc etc etc etc etc.

There are so many things that the players have to keep track of already (longswords do more damage than short swords. Fireball has a 20 foot radius. Acid and fire work well vs trolls. Dwarven exiles are not to be trusted. Hundreds of other things). We need a stable footing from which we can explore the wonders of the imaginary world, and to help us understand it.

If everything is bizarro world, then the wonders of the world aren't special anymore, and the PCs can't navigate the challenges of the world because they can't make any assumption.

I agree that the game world can benefit from assuming things work roughly like the real world. Especially where not called out otherwise.

Where I diverge is that for me, the inertia related to the velocity of the Earth around the Sun, or the Sun around the galaxy, or the galaxy around the Universe, is not really something that I ponder on daily or practically-speaking experience with any depth of interrogation. The Earth might as well be the stable center of the Universe, or at least that's as easy for me to picture as anything else - at the superficial level that I engage with inertia in day to day life. Inertia, particularly that of celestial bodies, is just not as familiar to me as wood floating, pigs and eggs, or sharp metal things!

One can raise important and valid scientific and logical disagreements with that, but aren't we discussing just what a person might easily grok? If a fantasy world that my RPG is set in doesn't orbit a sun etc, I can easily cope with that. I'd probably might find it pleasing! And I think misty step could well conserve inertia, or it could just as reasonably shed inertia: I have zero experience of teleporting!

 

[Ancalagon]

I noticed that, I just wanted to point out that the lore is actually far more subtle than some people recognise, as well as the fact that while basic world behaviour reasonably models our own, digging even sligthly into physics is doomed to fail extremely rapidly, magic makes even the basic scientific theories of the real world fairly impossible to use in the fantasy world.

Of course magic violates physics, and so do some of the rules (because of the necessary abstractions to run a game).

It doesn't mean it can't be used to help answer questions where the lore or rules are silent - such as "how far can you see a torch?" for a number of editions. (You would be surprised by the number of people who struggled with that).

 

[clearstream]

Of course magic violates physics, and so do some of the rules (because of the necessary abstractions to run a game).

It doesn't mean it can't be used to help answer questions -such as "how far can you see a torch"?

How far can you see a torch?

 

[Ancalagon]

How far can you see a torch?

Several hundred yards if there is line of sight, at the very least. (at night, if the torch is lit)

 

[Swarmkeeper]

On your turn

For example, on your turn you use movement to jump off of a 50 foot cliff. Then after you have dropped 20 feet you use misty step to misty step to the ground and land without taking any falling damage.

Would you allow this?

yes, if the PC still had a bonus action available while falling on their turn

 

[clearstream]

Several hundred yards if there is line of sight, at the very least. (at night, if the torch is lit)

Apologies, I was making an attempt at humour based on the rules not covering anything as basic as how far you can see a torch