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

[Maxperson]

No, actually. With all your dithering, you still have failed to express exactly what your ready action is. But in any case, the DM is still entitled to asking "are you crawling as fast as you can to get out of the blast, or are you just crawling around to mess up with the system ?"

What blast? There is no blast because according to you I've interrupted the spell before the blast ever happens. He is not entitled to ask me if I'm trying to get out of something that doesn't exist yet.

I did that ? This is simply a lie. If you think I have, show it to me. But otherwise, please be nice and stop putting words in my mouth.

From post #200, this is you arguing that the game doesn't have to be realistic.

"It all depends on your mindset and the visualisation that you are looking for. This is not, never has been a realistic game. It's just a simulation of the genre, and in the genre you see reflexes totally in line with this."

And pray tell where these stupid requirements come from and what they have to do with the declaration of what your character does ? A player does not make requirements, he just describes what his character is doing.

And the DM has to narrate in good faith. Modifying what I do is bad faith.

Then, by exactly the same token, when declaring a simple move (outside of any ready action), you think that you are entitled to say "I make my move of 30 feet, but at a snail pace so that it takes me 10 minutes" ? Because that is exactly what you are saying here.

No. You can only take up to 6 seconds and then the round is over.

And you think that a DM has to accept that it's going to take you 10 minutes to crawl 30 feet as your move action just because you declare it that way ? Honestly, I hope you realise how all of this sounds.

Outside of combat? He better accept a statement by me that I'm taking 10 minutes to crawl 30 feet if that is what I declare.

Prove it. You have totally failed to prove anything like this since the start of the conversation.

It's just like an attack. One thing broken up by steps. If an attack can have 3 steps and be one trigger, then so can teleport. Your blanket declaration that they are three effects isn't supported anywhere and you haven't proven that claim at all.

Actually no, I had to point you towards the Ready action of 5e and its "perceivable circumstance" when you insisted that it had to be an action like it was in 4e (see for example this post, but there are many other instances).

Um. No. I never insisted it was like 4e, because I never played 4e and have no idea how it worked there. I've been using 5e and ONLY 5e this entire time.

 

[Lyxen]

What blast? There is no blast because according to you I've interrupted the spell before the blast ever happens. He is not entitled to ask me if I'm trying to get out of something that doesn't exist yet.

Are you saying that your DM is stupid ? You are readying a crawl in preparation for something, the only question that matters is "are you crawling as fast as you can or are you just messing up the game with silly declarations ?"

From post #200, this is you arguing that the game doesn't have to be realistic.
"It all depends on your mindset and the visualisation that you are looking for. This is not, never has been a realistic game. It's just a simulation of the genre, and in the genre you see reflexes totally in line with this."

Ah, but this is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from saying things like "You argued earlier that things don't have to make sense if they are RAW."

Are you really, really saying that the D&D is realistic ? Honestly ? That Conan is realistic ? That all the books of the genre, all the movies, all the TV shows are realistic ? That all these narrow escapes by heroes using magic and incredible skill and training is realistic ? That an instantaneous teleportation that creates a sonic boom is realistic ?

My point is that it is NOT realistic, it's just a simulation of high fantasy fiction, it makes perfect sense in that paradigm, but it's not realistic.

But it's ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from making sense. All these books, movies, shows, comics work for us because they MAKE SENSE in that paradigm.

So please, be precise, I accept fully that what I'm describing is not realistic, since the game never was designed to be, but I don't accept that it's not making sense.

It might not make sense TO YOU because you have a different paradigm in mind, but it's exactly my point here, your view of that paradigm is just your own, it's not that of the game, the game is much more open than this and allows for many more gaming styles than yours without breaking the rules. And actually, the rules ENCOURAGE this.

And the DM has to narrate in good faith. Modifying what I do is bad faith.

Sorry, but a DM will match the faith of the player. If the player is making a stupid declaration just to show that the game does not work the way he things it's supposed to be doing, then the DM will respond in exactly the same way.

No. You can only take up to 6 seconds and then the round is over.

Ah, why is that, pray tell ? Please show me, exactly, in the rules, how long it takes to complete a move, and where the time limit is. Show me that it is up to 6 seconds.

Because it's not the way it works, there is no hard time limit, in particular because there are other actions to be completed during the round. The round does NOT belong to the character, only his turn, in which he just describes what he is doing. Because, you see, there are many other things happening within that round for all other participants in the fight, and the PC has exactly zero right to impose his own chronology of things.

So, whether it's in a normal move action within a round or with a move as a readied action, the limit is always set by the DM as to what is possible or not, it's not a question of good and bad faith.

Outside of combat? He better accept a statement by me that I'm taking 10 minutes to crawl 30 feet if that is what I declare.

No, please don't dither again, in combat, obviously.

It's just like an attack. One thing broken up by steps. If an attack can have 3 steps and be one trigger, then so can teleport.

Only you are, once more, not reading the rules. First, nothing says that things have to be identical. Are you pretending that all spells work the same as all attacks and actually all actions of the game ? No, of course, because that would be silly.

The main difference is what is PERCEIVABLE by the character. Is someone disappearing perceivable ? You bet it is. Is a roll by the player perceivable by the character ? Not in any game that I have been in, it's not. And that's exactly what the section on sentinel makes perfect sense, just as is the one about opportunity attack. Sentinel is a standard reaction and it's triggered AFTER the perceivable circumstance (an attack, not a roll by the player) finishes, whereas the opportunity attack is a special case, which occurs before the trigger finishes, it's an exception.

It all makes perfect sense when read properly within the context of the actual rules, not imaginary ones.

Your blanket declaration that they are three effects isn't supported anywhere and you haven't proven that claim at all.

Easy, just read the spell: "Immediately after you disappear, a thunderous boom sounds"

So, RAW, there are at least two separate things, disappearance and thunderous boom, separate and in sequence. Obviously, since at some point the character teleports, he will reappear somewhere. So that's three. Easy peasy.

Now, will you be able to prove that some are the same, I doubt you will, or you will have had by now.

Um. No. I never insisted it was like 4e, because I never played 4e and have no idea how it worked there. I've been using 5e and ONLY 5e this entire time.

Then it's a good thing that we are having this discussion, since at least you know that in 5e, triggers are not actions (as they were in 4e) but perceivable circumstances, which are very different.

And a good thing since it allows for readied actions to be declared at the character level, in the game world, and in relation with roleplaying him rather than technically at the gamist level of "actions".

 

[Maxperson]

Are you saying that your DM is stupid ? You are readying a crawl in preparation for something, the only question that matters is "are you crawling as fast as you can or are you just messing up the game with silly declarations ?"

How do I know it's thunderstep? I could just as easily have expected him to disappear to misty step or dimension door or... There is no thunder to run away from when my PC crawls. None. It doesn't exist as a threat, since I've interrupted the spell.

Are you really, really saying that the D&D is realistic ? Honestly ? That Conan is realistic ? That all the books of the genre, all the movies, all the TV shows are realistic ? That all these narrow escapes by heroes using magic and incredible skill and training is realistic ? That an instantaneous teleportation that creates a sonic boom is realistic ?

The problem is that if you can argue lack of realism for X, it can be argued for Y. Lack of realism is as good a reason to accept crawling away from a thunderstep, because RAW says you can as it is for what you argued.

We all have different levels of tolerance for lack of realism. Clearly what I am saying surpasses yours. Other things surpass mine and I change those for my game. That doesn't make what I'm saying any less RAW, though. Nor doe sit make what you or I would change something to relevant to this discussion of RAW.

But it's ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from making sense. All these books, movies, shows, comics work for us because they MAKE SENSE in that paradigm.

Do you know how many heroes I've watched or read walk or stroll away from an explosion that is close? It happens all the times in books, movies, shows and comics.

So please, be precise, I accept fully that what I'm describing is not realistic, since the game never was designed to be, but I don't accept that it's not making sense.

Which is fine. I like things to make sense for my game as well, but that's not the same as what RAW allows. If you believe that RAW allows us to interrupt thunderstep before it gets to damage and reappearance, then RAW also allows a PC to crawl slowly away from the area and be safe. Regardless of how much(or little) sense that makes.

Sorry, but a DM will match the faith of the player. If the player is making a stupid declaration just to show that the game does not work the way he things it's supposed to be doing, then the DM will respond in exactly the same way.

No. That's adversarial DMing and a big no no. If the player is not acting in good faith, the DM needs to talk to the player privately about it after the game, not combat the player in the game.

Ah, why is that, pray tell ? Please show me, exactly, in the rules, how long it takes to complete a move, and where the time limit is. Show me that it is up to 6 seconds.

"The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn." and "You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn."

That's it. During my round which is 6 seconds I can move and take an action, including forgoing any single portion, such as taking an action. If I forgo the action and only move, that move takes up those 6 seconds. If all I do is crawl, then I crawled for those 6 seconds.

Because it's not the way it works, there is no hard time limit, in particular because there are other actions to be completed during the round. The round does NOT belong to the character, only his turn, in which he just describes what he is doing. Because, you see, there are many other things happening within that round for all other participants in the fight, and the PC has exactly zero right to impose his own chronology of things.

Ordinarily, yes. However, your position that RAW says immediately after the trigger for readied actions means that 100% no movement has occurred prior to the trigger, and your position that this readied action interrupts the spell before it gets to thunder damage and reappearance means that those things cannot even begin until my readied action is done. You've created this situation through the way you are choosing to interpret the rules.

You cannot have what you are arguing is occurring during a readied action with the trigger, "When the caster disappears I will do X," and have everything happening at once. Those are mutually exclusive positions. You're creating a schrodinger's explosion where it is simultaneously exploding due to everything happening at once, and not exploding due to interrupting the teleport.

No, please don't dither again, in combat, obviously.

If it's in combat, you only get 6 seconds to crawl and then you are done. I suppose if you are in a multi-hour battle during a war, you could spend 100 straight rounds crawling around.

The main difference is what is PERCEIVABLE by the character. Is someone disappearing perceivable ? You bet it is. Is a roll by the player perceivable by the character ? Not in any game that I have been in, it's not.

Is the start of the swing perceivable? You bet it is. Does that take place before the roll and damage? You bet it does. Yet you can't interrupt it, because the trigger hasn't completed.

And that's exactly what the section on sentinel makes perfect sense, just as is the one about opportunity attack. Sentinel is a standard reaction and it's triggered AFTER the perceivable circumstance (an attack, not a roll by the player) finishes, whereas the opportunity attack is a special case, which occurs before the trigger finishes, it's an exception.

Except not. I showed above how you can break the attack up into perceivable triggers that happen before you get to the rest.

Easy, just read the spell: "Immediately after you disappear, a thunderous boom sounds"

Doesn't preclude reappearance happening first.

So, RAW, there are at least two separate things, disappearance and thunderous boom, separate and in sequence. Obviously, since at some point the character teleports, he will reappear somewhere. So that's three. Easy peasy.

It's not, though. There's nothing that says that disappearance and reappearance aren't happening simultaneously.

 

[Lyxen]

How do I know it's thunderstep? I could just as easily have expected him to disappear to misty step or dimension door or... There is no thunder to run away from when my PC crawls. None. It doesn't exist as a threat, since I've interrupted the spell.

Once more, there has to be some reason for your PC to act like this. So it's down to only one question, the one that you stubbornly refuse to answer because it would show the core of the problem for your argument: "are you trying to get away from the teleporter as fast as you can or not ?"

The problem is that if you can argue lack of realism for X, it can be argued for Y. Lack of realism is as good a reason to accept crawling away from a thunderstep, because RAW says you can as it is for what you argued.

RAW clearly allows it. After that, whether a specific DM will allow it in his campaign based on his sense of verisimilitude is his decision and his alone. The only thing that I'm saying is that his personal sense of what is realistic or not has no impact on the rules, which perfectly support it.

We all have different levels of tolerance for lack of realism. Clearly what I am saying surpasses yours. Other things surpass mine and I change those for my game. That doesn't make what I'm saying any less RAW, though. Nor doe sit make what you or I would change something to relevant to this discussion of RAW.

And RAW, as I've demonstrated, allows for not only the caster not taking damage from his Thunder Spell, but also for people readying an action to get away as soon as the caster disappears. Now, whether a DM will allow it depending on his personal preferences is something else entirely indeed.

Do you know how many heroes I've watched or read walk or stroll away from an explosion that is close? It happens all the times in books, movies, shows and comics.

Then exactly what is your problem for the caster or someone ready to move away not being affected by the explosion ?

Which is fine. I like things to make sense for my game as well, but that's not the same as what RAW allows. If you believe that RAW allows us to interrupt thunderstep before it gets to damage and reappearance, then RAW also allows a PC to crawl slowly away from the area and be safe. Regardless of how much(or little) sense that makes.

No, it does not allow for him to "slowly crawl away", because that is even inconsistent with your idea that movement is constrained by 6 seconds anyway.

No. That's adversarial DMing and a big no no. If the player is not acting in good faith, the DM needs to talk to the player privately about it after the game, not combat the player in the game.

Can you please stop drifting away here. If the player is acting like a dick (for example by making senseless declarations and insisting on screwing up the game), I'm sorry, but the best thing to do is to say "stop disrupting the game, your character is dead, see me after the game", so that at least the game can go on for the other players.

"The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn." and "You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn."

Alright, now does it say:

• That a round is EXACTLY six seconds ?
• That the turn of a player is EXACTLY six seconds ?

That's it. During my round which is 6 seconds

Wrong, you don't have a round, sorry, you only have a turn. Just read the above. So you don't have six seconds. Simple reading of the above, don't extrapolate.

I can move and take an action, including forgoing any single portion, such as taking an action. If I forgo the action and only move, that move takes up those 6 seconds. If all I do is crawl, then I crawled for those 6 seconds.

No, you have not, sorry, nothing in the rules say that. First, a round is not exactly six seconds, it's... just read the sentence but I'll give you a hint, there's an important word in there.

Second, other participants will have taken their turn after you. They might have killed you, moved you, whatever AFTER you took your turn and BEFORE it's your turn again in the next round. So you have ZERO decision here, you're just a participant.

Ordinarily, yes. However, your position that RAW says immediately after the trigger for readied actions means that 100% no movement has occurred prior to the trigger, and your position that this readied action interrupts the spell before it gets to thunder damage and reappearance means that those things cannot even begin until my readied action is done. You've created this situation through the way you are choosing to interpret the rules.

And that's a problem for no-one who actually reads the rules, since someone who reads the rules knows that a round is not exactly six seconds, and that the actions of all the participants intersperse in that time. Contrary to what you think, the time is not suspended when someone takes their turn, even when interrupted. It goes on for everyone, in parallel. Only the resolution is sequential.

You cannot have what you are arguing is occurring during a readied action with the trigger, "When the caster disappears I will do X," and have everything happening at once. Those are mutually exclusive positions. You're creating a schrodinger's explosion where it is simultaneously exploding due to everything happening at once, and not exploding due to interrupting the teleport.

And you are putting too many constraints because you confuse something happening "in an instant" and something that takes 0 time. It's not the same thing.

If it's in combat, you only get 6 seconds to crawl and then you are done.

No, you don't see above, it's not at your hand.

Is the start of the swing perceivable? You bet it is. Does that take place before the roll and damage? You bet it does. Yet you can't interrupt it, because the trigger hasn't completed.

Once more, you should really read the rules. Does Sentinel say that the trigger is "the start of the swing" ? No, it does not. Reading the rules is very helpful...

Except not. I showed above how you can break the attack up into perceivable triggers that happen before you get to the rest.

And if you read my other post, you would see that I would totally support "raising a weapon to attack" as a trigger. Only it's NOT the one described for sentinel. Try again.

Doesn't preclude reappearance happening first.

Well, I would argue that it does, because, once more, reading the spell says: "Immediately after you disappear..." so it really implies that the first thing that happens after the disappearance is the boom. Otherwise, it would have been written differently, "immediately after you teleport", for example.

But I agree that the implication is not that strong, it's not precluded, just not implied contrary to the other explanation.

It's not, though. There's nothing that says that disappearance and reappearance aren't happening simultaneously.

See above, there is an implication. I've never denied that other possibility of yours, just don't deny the one which is implied by the wording of the spell, that's all.

 

[Maxperson]

Once more, there has to be some reason for your PC to act like this. So it's down to only one question, the one that you stubbornly refuse to answer because it would show the core of the problem for your argument: "are you trying to get away from the teleporter as fast as you can or not ?"

Let's say that the PC and caster are on one side of a low wall and there are 8 goblins with bows on the other side. The PC doesn't want to get shot, so he's crawling away. It's not hard to come up with a reasonable explanation if you try.

RAW clearly allows it.

That's all that is important in a discussion of RAW

And RAW, as I've demonstrated, allows for not only the caster not taking damage from his Thunder Spell, but also for people readying an action to get away as soon as the caster disappears. Now, whether a DM will allow it depending on his personal preferences is something else entirely indeed.

I still disagree with you on the RAW. Whether the trigger completing is the brief one word description "disappears" or is the everything attached directly to that trigger "thunder and reappearance" is not stated one way or the other. You assume the former and I assumed the latter, which was backed up by that Sage Advice I showed you, even though you disagree with that as well.

Then exactly what is your problem for the caster or someone ready to move away not being affected by the explosion ?

I don't have a problem with it one way or the other. I just don't see where it's the correct decision by RAW.

Can you please stop drifting away here. If the player is acting like a dick (for example by making senseless declarations and insisting on screwing up the game), I'm sorry, but the best thing to do is to say "stop disrupting the game, your character is dead, see me after the game", so that at least the game can go on for the other players.

I'm not drifting away. What you are describing is adversarial DMing and I'm not going to take part in that. The best thing for me to do is allow it to happen and then talk to him privately so it doesn't happen again going forward. I'm not going to engage in me vs. the player.

• That a round is EXACTLY six seconds ?
• That the turn of a player is EXACTLY six seconds ?

It says around 6 seconds. And that's both the round and the turn of the player who can accomplish what he wants in that round.

Wrong, you don't have a round, sorry, you only have a turn. Just read the above. So you don't have six seconds. Simple reading of the above, don't extrapolate.

Prove that a person taking his turn over the round does not have the 6 seconds the PHB says. There are exactly 0 words saying or implying that the player's turn is shorter than the 6 second round. If you want to make that claim, you need to back it up.

Second, other participants will have taken their turn after you. They might have killed you, moved you, whatever AFTER you took your turn and BEFORE it's your turn again in the next round. So you have ZERO decision here, you're just a participant.

Okay. And? That has nothing to do with the length of the round or the PC's turn in that round and everything to do with the structure of combat in order to make combat playable.

And that's a problem for no-one who actually reads the rules, since someone who reads the rules knows that a round is not exactly six seconds, and that the actions of all the participants intersperse in that time.

So you think that if there are 60 participants in a combat, each one is taking one tenth of a second of that round to take his turn? No. Each one has the full 6 seconds, but is constrained from acting before or after other combatants in order to make combat playable. Simultaneous combat just doesn't work.

Contrary to what you think, the time is not suspended when someone takes their turn, even when interrupted. It goes on for everyone, in parallel. Only the resolution is sequential.

As I said before, that's mostly true. It isn't true when there is specific timing that overrules that general statement. With readied actions, the timing is explicitly AFTER the trigger finishes. With your interpretation that means that the PC is taking is turn BEFORE the thunder and the reappearance of the caster.

Once more, you should really read the rules. Does Sentinel say that the trigger is "the start of the swing" ? No, it does not. Reading the rules is very helpful...

Does it say when the attack is done? If you go out tonight and someone charges at you, that person is attacking you before he ever gets to contact.

Well, I would argue that it does, because, once more, reading the spell says: "Immediately after you disappear..." so it really implies that the first thing that happens after the disappearance is the boom. Otherwise, it would have been written differently, "immediately after you teleport", for example.

It's written poorly, like a good number of things in 5e.

But I agree that the implication is not that strong, it's not precluded, just not implied contrary to the other explanation.

See above, there is an implication. I've never denied that other possibility of yours, just don't deny the one which is implied by the wording of the spell, that's all.

It all boils down to whether or not you think an instant effect can be interrupted and/or if you think the trigger is only the one word and not the event tied to the trigger.

 

[Lyxen]

Let's say that the PC and caster are on one side of a low wall and there are 8 goblins with bows on the other side. The PC doesn't want to get shot, so he's crawling away. It's not hard to come up with a reasonable explanation if you try.

And you still have not answered the question from your DM, a simple one: "Are you trying to get away from the caster's disappearance point as fast as you can ?"

You are obviously trying to screw with the system to prove a point, not playing the character in good faith, and the problem is that you don't understand the system, you are laying a tons of personal assumptions on top of a system which is very flexible.

That's all that is important in a discussion of RAW

And that's where you are failing, because you are not using RAW< you are using your personal vision of it, cluttered by so many pre-conceptions of yours that don't exist in the RAW, for example that readied actions are started by other actions, that the teleport disappearance and appearance are absolutely simultaneous (they are not, in the rules), that you can spend the whole round as a player, when all you get, RAW, is a turn, etc. Let go of your pre-conceptions and you will see that there are many other ways to play the system RAW than the ones that you are trying to impose on us.

I still disagree with you on the RAW. Whether the trigger completing is the brief one word description "disappears" or is the everything attached directly to that trigger "thunder and reappearance" is not stated one way or the other.

I'm sorry, but as a player, saying that the trigger is the disappearance is perfectly legal, it's a perceivable circumstance. Do you deny this ?

After that, the thunder occurs AFTER the disapperance. Do you deny this ? I would be surprised, because it's written straight out in the spell description.

After that, the readied action INTERRUPTS the turn, without any other constraint, do you deny this ? It's again, written plainly in the RAW.

It does not work ONLY IN YOUR MIND because you have all the preconceptions about instantaneity and effects needing to complete THAT ARE NOWHERE IN THE RULES.

So please, if you want to discuss the RAW, don't invent rules which are not in there.

You assume the former and I assumed the latter, which was backed up by that Sage Advice I showed you, even though you disagree with that as well.

Sage Advice said NOTHING about this, sorry, you have zero backing here, the only thing it said is that sentinel triggers after an attack, because it's the perceivable circumstance, and in any case an attack roll and a damage roll are part of the attack. Please explain how the thunder is part of the disappearance when the spell EXPLICITELY says that it comes AFTER it. Once more, you are stuck on the ruts of "one spell = one action = indivisible", which is NOWHERE in the rules.

I don't have a problem with it one way or the other. I just don't see where it's the correct decision by RAW.

It is the correct decision if you don't add personal rules on the RAW, like you've been doing since the start of this discussion, many examples of this above.

I'm not drifting away. What you are describing is adversarial DMing and I'm not going to take part in that. The best thing for me to do is allow it to happen and then talk to him privately so it doesn't happen again going forward. I'm not going to engage in me vs. the player.

The problem is that, before this, you are engaging in adversarial playing, trying to screw the system and the DM by not answering ONE SIMPLE QUESTION. Just answer it.

It says around 6 seconds. And that's both the round and the turn of the player who can accomplish what he wants in that round.

No, it does not, once more, you are inventing things. The rules simply say: " A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other."

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT YOUR TURN LASTS A COMPLETE ROUND ? It says exactly the contrary, actually, everyone takes a turn, in sequence, so your turn is OVER when played until the next round.

You are, once more, completely inventing things.

Prove that a person taking his turn over the round does not have the 6 seconds the PHB says. There are exactly 0 words saying or implying that the player's turn is shorter than the 6 second round. If you want to make that claim, you need to back it up.

Simple example: On your TURN, you walk 30 feet up to an opponent. Then an opponent hits you, causing to go down, and then moves 30 feet. End of round. Are you going to pretend that you spent 6 seconds walking your 30 feet, and that because of that, your opponent had to move his own 30 feet instantly because you "ate" all the six seconds of the round in your turn ?

It's ridiculous, because although some actions can be described as happening in parallel, sometimes there IS a sequence. In the example above, you are 30 feet away from where you started, right where the opponent was, and that opponent is 30 feet away from your body. All of that happened in about 6 seconds, so there is NO WAY you spend all that time moving your first 30 feet.

Okay. And? That has nothing to do with the length of the round or the PC's turn in that round and everything to do with the structure of combat in order to make combat playable.

In the extremely simple example above, I have proven to you that your turn was less than 6 seconds long, extremely easily, in a case where there are only two opponents. The problem is that you don't really understand how all of this can work, you are playing using only your own personal rules and constraints on top of the RAW. These personal rules DO NOT EXIST for other players who only read the system. Don't impose them on us, they have no value, and they would constrain us for no reason, especially since they are not in the rules, only in your personal interpretation of them because you need structure and a level of verisimilitude that suits you, for your games. But others don't need it.

So you think that if there are 60 participants in a combat, each one is taking one tenth of a second of that round to take his turn? No. Each one has the full 6 seconds, but is constrained from acting before or after other combatants in order to make combat playable. Simultaneous combat just doesn't work.

And this is again the problem, you want absolute rulings, but this is not how the system works, never has. For it to work, there is no overall sequencing of actions, just an overall sequencing of RESOLUTION, with constraints only appearing when necessary, not all the time.

My example above sequences things only for these two combattants. Most of them are NOT affected by that sequence, and can have their actions overlapping and occurring in parallel without any problem whatsoever. But in some cases, there is a clear sequence, and you need to recognise this, as in the example above.

The system is extremely flexible, you are the one trying to screw it up by introducing extraneous constraints that don't exist in the rules. The system, as described in the RAW, allows for all sort of heroic actions, including readied actions happening in an instant, with superhuman reflexes. If you want to forbid them in your games by adding more constraints, do it, but don't pretend that these interdictions are part of the rules. They are not and you have been unable to prove ANY of them so far.

As I said before, that's mostly true. It isn't true when there is specific timing that overrules that general statement. With readied actions, the timing is explicitly AFTER the trigger finishes. With your interpretation that means that the PC is taking is turn BEFORE the thunder and the reappearance of the caster.

And this is EXACTLY what the rules say. The readied action is taken "right after the trigger finishes", not after the action finishes, not after the spell finishes. That is the rule, and you have been unable to find a shred of evidence proving otherwise, simply because there is not any.

And further proof is in the reaction section: "If the reaction interrupts another creature’s turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction." So the turn of the caster continues right after the reaction, easy, simple, visual, and causing absolutely no problem except with people like you who want to create additional non-existing constraints about spells or actions needing to finish.

Does it say when the attack is done?

You really need to read the rules:

• "When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."
• " If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action."

Sentinel is a standard reaction, so it occurs after its trigger finishes, as explained in the SAC.

Now, some reactions are even quicker than this and can interrupt THE TRIGGER ("For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers."), so if you had such a reaction based on the disappearance, it would actually interrupt the disappearance.

I'll give you one more based on shield, someone casts a Magic Missile at you, an instantaneous effect. And it can occur when you are "targeted by the magic missile spell", even if you are not even aware that the spell has been cast ! So even if you are totally oblivious of the casting, when you are targeted and the spell is cast and the missiles are instantaneously flying towards you, you can still interrupt that with a casting of shield and prevent the spell. If it's not interrupting an instantaneous effect, I don't know what it is.

So it's one more proof that reactions can interrupt instantaneous effects, that one can even interrupt its trigger, since it's so fast. Most are slightly slower, they don't interrupt the trigger, they just interrupt the rest of the sequence, but are still just after the trigger finishes, as specified clearly in both the PH and the DMG.

If you go out tonight and someone charges at you, that person is attacking you before he ever gets to contact.

I'm sorry, I'm a normal human being (despite quite a lot of combat training and thousands of hours of LARPing), so I don't have sentinel as a feat.

But some of my characters to (I love tanks), and when it happens, it happens as per the rules above.

It's written poorly, like a good number of things in 5e.

Yeah, right, I'm sure you are the best game designer out here and you could do much better. In the meantime, I thought we were discussing the RAW, so too bad, if you want to discuss them, you have to take them as they are.

And the problem is that you are the only one considering that they are "badly written", not because they are truly that way (they are not perfect, but it's still the most popular TTRPG ever by a huge margin, millions play it, many more millions than any other game before or since, and lots of people have no problem with them), but because they don't say what you WISH they would say.

And I'm happy they don't because the game that you wish is much more constrained by YOUR vision of verisimilitude, which is NOT the one that I want for my games. I'm perfectly happy with the way they are written, it's by far the best edition of D&D ever for our groups, because they are so open and conducive to heroic play.

It all boils down to whether or not you think an instant effect can be interrupted and/or if you think the trigger is only the one word and not the event tied to the trigger.

And, once more, you have totally failed to prove that, in the RAW, an instant effect cannot be interrupted. Since the game places no limits on interruptions, it just shows that your interpretation is wrong.

Moreover, I have shown to you that there are other examples, for example the counterspelling of a counterspell, which is perfectly legal, you interrupt an instantaneous counterspell. It's ni the RAW, and even in the Sage Advice Compendium, and it is even more remarkable because it restores a spell that was previously thought to be interrupted. Everything is instantaneous in there, from the original fireball being cast to the two counterspells being used as reactions. And they still interrupt each other, and if there were other participants, they could continue that counterspell chain as long as they had reactions, interrupting each other in the middle of instantaneous reactions. Face it, you have trouble with the concept, but it's plainly there in the rules.

And another example with the magic missile above, by the way, very simple one.

In your games, you can totally say that instant effects cannot be interrupted, but it's not RAW, please stop trying to impose that personal peeve of yours on us.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is super vague and if you take 'perceivable circumstance' in it's broadest sense, you can ready an action to happen basically at any point. I would be a bit careful with that. If I cue a ready action to 'when he raises his weapon to attack' can I cue it to go before the attack actually happens?

Probably. As yoi could have attacked before them anyway. Then probably more than once.

In such circumstances however I would make a contest of sort:
dexterity vs dexterity/wisdom check.

Or if it was outside combat, just initiative.

 

[James Gasik]

To be fair, popularity =/= good rules. I'm going to just quickly glance in GW's direction and not say anything. D&D could explain things better than it does. WotC could take firmer stances on the rules and STILL "empower" DM's to change things if they like (I mean, they've done that since the very beginning no matter what the rulebooks say). There are good examples of poorly written rules in D&D, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.

Reactions are a mess, and they were a mess in 4e as well, when they "occur after the trigger" but depending on the trigger, they could still interrupt things, despite the game having an action type for interrupting things. 5e, not unlike MtG, tossed out the term "interrupt", leaving us with wonky reactions that sometimes can avoid attacks (like Shield) and sometimes cannot (like Sentinel), based on the precise trigger.

The ready action doesn't give any guidance on this topic, instead using the very openly worded "perceivable circumstance", which opens itself up immediately to gaming the system.

Consider two players:

Player One: "I want to ready, and if the bad guy attacks the Wizard, I'm going to hit him with Maneuvering Strike!"

Player Two: "I also want to ready, and if the enemy moves into melee range with the Wizard, I'm going to hit him with my Eldritch Blast and push him back."

One of these two Ready actions, based on it's wording, could theoretically negate an attack. The other probably will not. Ready could completely afford to be more clear on how it is intended to be used, and not require munchkinry to be used to greater effect.

 

[Lyxen]

To be fair, popularity =/= good rules. I'm going to just quickly glance in GW's direction and not say anything. D&D could explain things better than it does. WotC could take firmer stances on the rules and STILL "empower" DM's to change things if they like (I mean, they've done that since the very beginning no matter what the rulebooks say). There are good examples of poorly written rules in D&D, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.

While the rules are not perfect, most of the claims of "bad writing" that I've seen is rather "the rules don't say what I would want them to say".

Quite a bit has been clarified as well, without the need of ultra-long errata.

Reactions are a mess, and they were a mess in 4e as well, when they "occur after the trigger" but depending on the trigger, they could still interrupt things, despite the game having an action type for interrupting things. 5e, not unlike MtG, tossed out the term "interrupt", leaving us with wonky reactions that sometimes can avoid attacks (like Shield) and sometimes cannot (like Sentinel), based on the precise trigger.

There are a few areas where I think some jargon might have been kept like reaction/interrupt or the types of magic, but they made the choice of as little jargon as possible and I think it paid considering the popularity of the game. Technically, I agree, there could be reactions which occur after the trigger and interrupts that actually occur before the trigger finishes, but as even the reactions interrupt something (usually the turn), it would have been bad with natural language.

The ready action doesn't give any guidance on this topic, instead using the very openly worded "perceivable circumstance", which opens itself up immediately to gaming the system.

For me, much less than the 4e instance which was only a system. Here, at least, it's something perceivable by the character.

Consider two players:

Player One: "I want to ready, and if the bad guy attacks the Wizard, I'm going to hit him with Maneuvering Strike!"

Player Two: "I also want to ready, and if the enemy moves into melee range with the Wizard, I'm going to hit him with my Eldritch Blast and push him back."

One of these two Ready actions, based on it's wording, could theoretically negate an attack. The other probably will not. Ready could completely afford to be more clear on how it is intended to be used, and not require munchkinry to be used to greater effect.

It's just that the second one is more precise, but it's still something very much within the thinking realm of the character. I've had no problem with players gaming it at all, despite using readied actions probably a bit more than most, as mentioned in pre-combat tense situations or assassination attempts (where they work great).

 

[James Gasik]

I've had to personally disallow pre-combat readied actions. I didn't want to, since it makes sense to me- an archer could knock their bow while a door is being opened, and so on.

But this created two problems- one, a battle can suddenly be very easy when the instant an enemy appears, it gets peppered with ranged attacks.

And two, and worse, is when I allowed enemies the same luxury. Turns out it's not a happy moment when someone strolls into a room to get shot full of holes by archers (imagine that)!