D&D 5E (2014) If you use thunderstep but teleport less than 10 feet do you take damage?

[UngeheuerLich]

There is no 'in between'. Sorry if that's a problem for you.

Seems it is more than one post.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Step 1. Thunderstep “teleports” (Teleport “instantly transports you…to a destination”).

This comes from a different spell. This is no universal rule, but ok if you apply it that way, but it is not a hard coded rule for all spells that transport you from one place to another.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Step 1. Thunderstep “teleports” (Teleport “instantly transports you…to a destination”).

Step 2. Immediately after you disappear, a thunderous boom sounds.

This to me is the most obvious and most straightforward reading of the spell.

 

[chaochou]

This comes from a different spell. This is no universal rule, but ok if you apply it that way, but it is not a hard coded rule for all spells that transport you from one place to another.

Okay, let's take you on your word.

You'll now have to prove to me - since @Lyxen likes demanding proof - prove to me that you reappear at all.

Since the spell doesn't say you reappear, you can't say you do. And since you're now stating that teleport can't be relied upon to describe what happens, you're in a spot of trouble, aren't you?

So either;

i. you are reading disappear as a synonym for 'teleport' and we have one phenonemon called 'teleport' which happens instantly
ii. you are reading 'disappear' as a seperate phenonenon from teleport and so there is no evidence from the spell that you reappear at any particular time in this, or any other, future.

Or, there is what's actually happening;
You want to rules lawyer to your best advantage between the two and hope no-one notices.

What happens to rules lawyers in games I run is that they never reappear.

 

[chaochou]

Good luck, so far, no-one has been able to PROVE it.

I complete reject the premise that the onus is on me to prove anything.

You stated that the rules 'provide the answer' back in post 6. So the onus is on you to prove that instantly doesn't mean instantly.

 

[James Gasik]

I really don't see why this is considered "rules lawyering to get an advantage". If I want to blast everyone in my vicinity with damage without moving, there are better ways to do that. In fact, I'm gimping the ultimate function of the spell to do it. To say that Thunderstep is only useful as an escape spell if every time I cast it, I must always be able to teleport out of the blast zone makes it an extremely narrow spell. One that might not ever be worth preparing, to be honest.

I can't for the life of me see how deciding to not teleport and doing damage to enemies without taking damage is problematic or exploitative. If people still select it and use it despite such a ruling, good luck to them, but I don't believe it's worth it.

And fortunately, there are many other spells I could take instead.

EDIT: this kind of reminds me of the days when Fireball absolutely HAD to produce it's maximum volume of blast, so if you tried to fling it at a wall to catch just enemies in it's radius and not your allies, oops, sorry, the explosion comes right back at you! Thankfully, we now only get a 20' radius out of Fireball, even if the center of the blast is right against a solid object.

 

[Lyxen]

You'll now have to prove to me - since @Lyxen likes demanding proof - prove to me that you reappear at all.

Since, ultimately, the spell teleports you, you indeed reappear, the question is WHEN. Moreover, if you read the spell, there is circumstantial evidence that you appear: "You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn’t exceed what you can carry. You can also teleport one willing creature of your size or smaller who is carrying gear up to its carrying capacity. The creature must be within 5 feet of you when you cast this spell, and there must be an unoccupied space within 5 feet of your destination space for the creature to appear in; otherwise, the creature is left behind."

Since you are taking the creature along, it's logical that you also appear. So there is, clearly, in as many words, in the spell description: a disappearance, a boom, and an appearance. Do you deny this, that the three appear separately ?

Now, since there are three things, there is an order, and the boom is "Immediately after you disappear". So the order is clearly that the thunder is AFTER the disappearance, and because it is IMMEDIATELY after, the logical conclusion is that the appearance, since it cannot be before the disappearance, is ALSO after the boom.

I don't see any flaw in this, from what is written in the spell.

Since the spell doesn't say you reappear, you can't say you do. And since you're now stating that teleport can't be relied upon to describe what happens, you're in a spot of trouble, aren't you?

Your tone is extremely disagreeable, and totally unjustified, as proven above, there IS a reappearance. Guess who is in a spot of trouble, now ?

i. you are reading disappear as a synonym for 'teleport' and we have one phenonemon called 'teleport' which happens instantly

Since when "disappearance" is a synonym for teleportation ?

ii. you are reading 'disappear' as a seperate phenonenon from teleport and so there is no evidence from the spell that you reappear at any particular time in this, or any other, future.

And this just proves that you have not even read the spell to its very end. Q.E.D.

Or, there is what's actually happening;
You want to rules lawyer to your best advantage between the two and hope no-one notices.

What happens to rules lawyers in games I run is that they never reappear.

Then, please, live by your own words, be gone, and don't reappear.

I complete reject the premise that the onus is on me to prove anything.

It's funny, because you are certainly trying, but totally failing, since your only argument is that the appearance is not mentioned. Too bad it is, explicitely...

You stated that the rules 'provide the answer' back in post 6. So the onus is on you to prove that instantly doesn't mean instantly.

Sorry, no, the onus is for you to prove that instantly means what you think it means. For example, the spell happens instantly, in an instant, and STILL there is a sequence, because the boom is only AFTER the disappearance. Now, please deny that "instantly" means that there is no sequence, It's going to be funny.

 

[Lyxen]

I really don't see why this is considered "rules lawyering to get an advantage". If I want to blast everyone in my vicinity with damage without moving, there are better ways to do that. In fact, I'm gimping the ultimate function of the spell to do it. To say that Thunderstep is only useful as an escape spell if every time I cast it, I must always be able to teleport out of the blast zone makes it an extremely narrow spell. One that might not ever be worth preparing, to be honest.

We both know that, unfortunately some people can't discuss without flinging insults around (and continue despite being told off).

I can't for the life of me see how deciding to not teleport and doing damage to enemies without taking damage is problematic or exploitative. If people still select it and use it despite such a ruling, good luck to them, but I don't believe it's worth it.

And fortunately, there are many other spells I could take instead.

I know, it's a bit sad actually, that kind of defensiveness in front of players just trying to have a bit of fun. It makes it sound like the DM is desperate to control really nasty players, and makes one wonder about the environment some people are playing with...

EDIT: this kind of reminds me of the days when Fireball absolutely HAD to produce it's maximum volume of blast, so if you tried to fling it at a wall to catch just enemies in it's radius and not your allies, oops, sorry, the explosion comes right back at you! Thankfully, we now only get a 20' radius out of Fireball, even if the center of the blast is right against a solid object.

Yes, fortunately 5e moved away from the silly "gotch'a" mentality of previous editions where it was basically a tool to show player who was the boss and the most clever person at the table...

 

[overgeeked]

Step 1. Thunderstep “teleports” (Teleport “instantly transports you…to a destination”).

Step 2. Immediately after you disappear, a thunderous boom sounds.

Right? We’re at 18 pages of arguing whether the PC should suffer the logical consequences of their chosen action. Yes, they should. Apparently that statement is worth arguing about...quite a lot.

 

[Lyxen]

Right?

No, wrong !

We’re at 18 pages of arguing whether the PC should suffer the logical consequences of their chosen action. Yes, they should. Apparently that statement is worth arguing about...quite a lot.

Just by the same token, we have also been discussing whether it's worth for a DM to frustrate his players and deny them totally inconsequential fun for using a spell creatively. No, they should not.