D&D 5E If you use thunderstep but teleport less than 10 feet do you take damage?

[Lyxen]

"Harkening back to the example of Rasputin, it would be safe to assume that he could withstand physical damage sufficient to have killed any four normal men, i.e. more than 14 hit points. Therefore, let us assume that a character with an 18 constitution will eventually be able to withstand no less than 15 hit points of actual physical damage before being slain, and that perhaps as many as 23 hit points could constitute the physical makeup of a character. The balance of accrued hit points are those which fall into the non-physical areas already detailed."

Hmmm... This was a very hypothetical computation, especially seeing the rest of the paragraph: "Furthermore, these actual physical hit points would be spread across a large number of levels, starting from a base score of from an average of 3 to 4, going up to 6 to 8 at 2nd level, 9 to 11 at 3rd, 12 to 14 at 4th, 15 to 17 at 5th, 18 to 20 at 6th, and 21 to 23 at 7th level. Note that the above assumes the character is a fighter with an average of 3 hit points per die going to physical ability to withstand punishment and only 1 point of constitution bonus being likewise assigned."

So, basically, it's a one-off computation for a single 7th level fighter. But I agree that it gives and idea of the rationale.

The PHB.

"Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."

It says typically show no signs of injury, because if the PC is bitten by a giant spider or stung by a scorpion and is still above half hit points, there would need to be some sign of injury for the venom to be able to force a save.

And I guess it would be less than 50% are meat, really. Below 50% and above 0 would be a combination.

Note that this is very indicative only, not only as you mention, but also because it's not even a rule, it starts with "Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways" and includes "typically".

So I guess we stay in the same idea of ballpark combination, which makes sense since, although various editions modified the descriptions a bit, the concepts stayed very similar.

 

[Maxperson]

Not exactly, though: "Every character has a speed, which is the distance in feet that the character can walk in 1 round." So it's completely the other way around, actually. If you walk, you will move your speed in a round. That's all it says. But if you take a move action and move your speed, it does NOT mean walking, as demonstrated many times over, with standard actions and readied ones.

More Red Herrings. Unless you can prove that my PC cannot by RAW walk or crawl away from the blast area in-between the disappearance and the both the thunder and reappearance(your version of ready action), then you fail to prove your position.

All of this, "The DM would be within his rights to say no" and "it doesn't have to mean walking" and "He could have walked during his turn before the ready action." are just deflections. None of that matters, because we are discussing RAW, not DM house rules or what someone else might have done.

You could but that would not get you out of the blast, which was the whole point to start with.

By your RAW reading of Readied Actions it does. Your deflections don't alter that fact.

Let's go over the facts as you have stated them.

1) You say that Ready allows you to interrupt a teleport in the middle by stating "When the caster disappears." This would happen before the thunder goes off and re-appearance.
2) Ready allows me to move however I see fit.
3) I declare that I'm going to crawl 15 feet away when the caster disappears.
4) When my crawling is done, I am now 20 feet away from where the caster disappeared.
5) Since my Readied Action is done, the thunder now goes off and then the caster re-appears, after having been held in limbo while I crawled away.

All of those is by the books legal(according to your interpretation of RAW). That makes it wrong for the DM to slam me on it, ESPECIALLY since you have argued repeatedly in this thread that the game doesn't have to make sense.

 

[Maxperson]

Hmmm... This was a very hypothetical computation, especially seeing the rest of the paragraph: "Furthermore, these actual physical hit points would be spread across a large number of levels, starting from a base score of from an average of 3 to 4, going up to 6 to 8 at 2nd level, 9 to 11 at 3rd, 12 to 14 at 4th, 15 to 17 at 5th, 18 to 20 at 6th, and 21 to 23 at 7th level. Note that the above assumes the character is a fighter with an average of 3 hit points per die going to physical ability to withstand punishment and only 1 point of constitution bonus being likewise assigned."

So, basically, it's a one-off computation for a single 7th level fighter. But I agree that it gives and idea of the rationale.

I disagree. The language implies that after 23 hit points people just stop accumulating any physical hit points and it's all the other type. If it meant 7th level, Gygax would have said so instead of saying a character will eventually have 15-23 hit physical hit points.

Note that this is very indicative only, not only as you mention, but also because it's not even a rule, it starts with "Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways" and includes "typically".

So I guess we stay in the same idea of ballpark combination, which makes sense since, although various editions modified the descriptions a bit, the concepts stayed very similar.

Again, they were forced to include "typically", since atypical damage occurs from some monster attacks. Like spider bites that have to do physical damage to be able to poison a PC. That doesn't make it not the general rule. It just means that specific beats general for some monster attacks.

 

[CleverNickName]

If you ask my players what a balanced encounter is, they would probably say "a battle that we can expect to win, carrying treasure that we can expect to use, and worth enough XP that we can expect to gain a level after about a dozen battles." If they're feeling generous. Because that's what they expect me to deliver every time I call for Initiative.

I'm not saying they're right or they're wrong...I'm saying they get disappointed a lot. And I think their disappointment has as much to do with their own expectations as it does with the rules. I mean, who decided that every battle must be winnable? or profitable?

 

[James Gasik]

Well, nobody. But I don't think it's unreasonable to assume challenges are within the player's means to overcome. I stress with my groups that forewarned is forearmed, and gathering intelligence before encounters is the surest path to victory. And time and again, the lazy jerks don't use consumables I give them, or worse, forget about them, and blunder on into battle after battle, because, as long as they are winning, everything is fine, right?

This one time I was running an adaptation of an old Dungeon adventure and they had to cross this swamp in 3 days. They quickly realized that wasn't possible, due to the terrain. I kept dropping hints, and finally I flat out said "hey do you remember that Feather Token you found that makes a boat?"

"Oh that? I didn't bother putting it on my character sheet because it sounded dumb, a magical swan boat? My character wouldn't be caught dead riding that. Besides, it only lasts for an hour."

I then read the item description of the magical, self-propelled swan boat that lasts for -24- hours. I was vindicated when the other players yelled at the offending party and begged me for the opportunity to have picked up the Feather Token after the idiot dumped it.

I allowed it, and the Bard is like, "Great, everyone aboard the S.S. Ugly Duckling!" Then the offending player went to get on, and without missing a beat, the Bard says "not you."

 

[Lyxen]

More Red Herrings. Unless you can prove that my PC cannot by RAW walk or crawl away from the blast area in-between the disappearance and the both the thunder and reappearance(your version of ready action), then you fail to prove your position.

I am lost as to what my position exactly is, sorry, all I see is incorrect summaries of what I say and the rules, which you never cite but rewrite as you see fit.

All of this, "The DM would be within his rights to say no" and "it doesn't have to mean walking" and "He could have walked during his turn before the ready action." are just deflections. None of that matters, because we are discussing RAW, not DM house rules or what someone else might have done.

And again, every single time you mention rules, you mangle them. Case in point your view about pretending that movement is walking. Since you have repeatedly mangled bot the rules and my words, you will have to be clearer than this to try to make a point.

I'm cutting off the rest, since it's all more of the same and you have not even tried to answer what I put in THIS POST, which points out that the problem that you have is globally about the move in a readied action, not about the specific case of Thunder Step. Unfortunately for you, the RAW on readied actions are crystal clear, and you have been using them incorrectly, by adding requirements not present in the rules. It's fine if they don't present the level of verisimilitude that you are looking for and you want to amend them, I simply have a different way to look at time and actions during combat which makes the RAW not present any problems of visualisation and interpretation. To each his own.

That makes it wrong for the DM to slam me on it, ESPECIALLY since you have argued repeatedly in this thread that the game doesn't have to make sense.

And honestly, seeing this (which is patently untrue, as every single time you rephrase what I'm saying or what the rules say) has cut off any desire of mine to discuss with you further. Have a nice day.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

While my first inclination is to say that they take the damage, upon further consideration I feel like the caster is basically just using a 3rd level spell slot to cast a variation of Shatter at the 2nd level. While in a one-off usage it might be fun to punish them, really the player is probably just trying to make the most out of their precious spells known or prepared. Since I feel the game could generally afford to be less stingy with spells known or prepared, I feel the best call is letting them not take the damage if they don't want to take the damage.

I don't think it is fun to punish players for using something creatively.
The wording is "after you disappear", not "after you reappear". Nowhere in the rules is stated, that you disappear and reappear at the same time. So at least, as a DM you should telegraph to the player beforehand, that you would be affected by their own spell, as you reappear faster than the shockwave travels.

Other than that I think your conclusion is the correct one: don't punish players for being creative, if it is not someone who constantly bends the game rules.

Edit: with punish I don't mean intentionally working against a player, but just being a bit more picky about what to allow and what not.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Other than that I think your conclusion is the correct one: don't punish players for being creative, if it is not someone who constantly bends the game rules.

The general sentiment I can agree with… but… I think there are a lot more creative things to do than choosing to thunderstep 0’ to 10’ instead of 15’ to 90’, but perhaps that’s a subjective assessment on my part.

More troubling here is the implication that it is okay to punish players in-game for constantly bending the game rules. An out-of-game adult conversation should be happening in that situation, not any kind of in-game retribution.

 

[Lyxen]

The general sentiment I can agree with… but… I think there are a lot more creative things to do than choosing to thunderstep 0’ to 10’ instead of 15’ to 90’, but perhaps that’s a subjective assessment on my part.

There certainly is, but discouraging even small "innovations" is certainly not a way to encourage larger and more creative ones.

More troubling here is the implication that it is okay to punish players in-game for constantly bending the game rules. An out-of-game adult conversation should be happening in that situation, not any kind of in-game retribution.

Indeed. In a sense, it goes back to some recent posts by @EzekielRaiden about the state of mind of the DM, when balancing what he sees as the verisimilitude of his world vs. the fun of the players. Discussing all that, possibly at session 0 or at later equivalents is indeed the right way to do it, not in game "subtle hints"...

 

[Maxperson]

I am lost as to what my position exactly is, sorry, all I see is incorrect summaries of what I say and the rules, which you never cite but rewrite as you see fit.



And again, every single time you mention rules, you mangle them. Case in point your view about pretending that movement is walking. Since you have repeatedly mangled bot the rules and my words, you will have to be clearer than this to try to make a point.

I'm cutting off the rest, since it's all more of the same and you have not even tried to answer what I put in THIS POST, which points out that the problem that you have is globally about the move in a readied action, not about the specific case of Thunder Step. Unfortunately for you, the RAW on readied actions are crystal clear, and you have been using them incorrectly, by adding requirements not present in the rules. It's fine if they don't present the level of verisimilitude that you are looking for and you want to amend them, I simply have a different way to look at time and actions during combat which makes the RAW not present any problems of visualisation and interpretation. To each his own.



And honestly, seeing this (which is patently untrue, as every single time you rephrase what I'm saying or what the rules say) has cut off any desire of mine to discuss with you further. Have a nice day.

Dude. You keep avoiding. I laid out the summary of RAW facts. So I'll try again as questions for you to answer.

1. Can I by RAW, without having done anything else at all during a round, ready an action to crawl 15 away from the caster when he disappears?
2. Will this readied action by RAW go off when the trigger completes(disappearance) before the thunder or reappearance of the caster?

That's it. Nothing else matters. Not whether the DM would make some sort of ruling(those aren't RAW and don't apply to RAW discussions). And not whether you could move in a different manner.