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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I don't fall for this bait. I don't have to proof anything, because in my opinion the spells description is not precise enough to make a definite conclusion based on the desription.

I think you should stop accusing others of rules lawyering.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't fall for this bait. I don't have to proof anything, because in my opinion the spells description is not precise enough to make a definite conclusion based on the desription.

Indeed, the belief of some people here is that the spell (like 5e in general) supports many interpretations, it's up to those who want to restrict it to prover that such restrictions indeed exist in the rules (not just in their beliefs).

I think you should stop accusing others of rules lawyering.

Indeed, pot and kettle, speck and log and all that...

 

[overgeeked]

I don't fall for this bait. I don't have to proof anything, because in my opinion the spells description is not precise enough to make a definite conclusion based on the desription.

I think you should stop accusing others of rules lawyering.

Teleporting with this spell and trying to argue your way out of taking the resulting thunder damage is pretty much the definition of rules lawyering.

 

[Lyxen]

Teleporting with this spell and trying to argue your way out of taking the resulting thunder damage is pretty much the definition of rules lawyering.

And which definition would that be, exactly ? Since the spell does not only teleport you (the definition of which is also fuzzy as is the rest of 5e) but also does thunder damage. For example, what would happen if the DM was using the spell that way and arguing that it could ? Is ruleslawyering a "player only" thing ?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Teleporting with this spell and trying to argue your way out of taking the resulting thunder damage is pretty much the definition of rules lawyering.

Or arguing that the player in question does take damage for not teleporting far enough.

 

[overgeeked]

Or arguing that the player in question does take damage for not teleporting far enough.

“The DM’s a rules lawyer if they try to enforce the rules of the game!” That’s certainly a new twist. Thanks for the laugh. Tschüss.

 

[Lyxen]

“The DM’s a rules lawyer if they try to enforce the rules of the game!” That’s certainly a new twist. Thanks for the laugh. Tschüss.

Please have a look at the definition here and explain to us why it's restricted to a DM. Don't you think that some players also try to have the rules of the game as published be enforced, and that this is what ruleslawyering is actually about ?

In any case, it's pejorative, so now that it's been pointed our repeatedly, I expect that, if it continues to be used, some moderation will have to come into effect.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

“The DM’s a rules lawyer if they try to enforce the rules of the game!” That’s certainly a new twist. Thanks for the laugh. Tschüss.

You are funny.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, you can't, not for all the rolls.

You can for every roll I mentioned.

There are only two potentially visible events:

• Raising a weapon, as if to attack (but is that even going to be an attack, how can you tell ?)

Um, no. You can see the swing begin towards you and interrupt it before it even gets close to completing(the roll to hit). You can see the body shift position as it must in order to attack. If you've ever taken martial arts, you learn to watch the body for the movement that indicates not only that an attack is coming, but from which side and what kind of attack. You can perceive intent in the eyes and facial language. There is a TON to perceive with an attack, before it ever gets to the roll.

• Connecting or missing with an attack.

You can, by RAW, perceive the hit before it does damage. We have spells and abilities that are used at that point and they could only be uses if such perception was possible.

And I'm sorry, but if you are putting this as an hypothesis, when the rules tell you explicitly that they are different, there is no point discussing anymore...

You just said they were the same thing!!!!! In the quote I just used to say that! Good God man! This is you!

"Of course, rounds and turns are the same thing, everyone knows this."

And then I'm lost about what your position is. I argue that they can be both sequential or simultaneous, depending on the situation and the actions taken (and which is also why it's important that a round is not EXACTLY 6 seconds long, the flexibility in the duration (about 6 seconds) is important for flexibility in narration).

Yes, but your simultaneous portion is home brew. Nothing in RAW says or indicates that. RAW is only sequential. CAN they be simultaneous? Some of it can be if you want to make it that way for your game. Other parts like Readied actions cannot be. They explicitly interrupt the other guy's turn until you are finished with yours.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree, but if you look at forums, some people even in here argue that they have encountered bad DMs (not in the sense that their games were poor, but that they were ill-intentioned) and that the rules were there to protect them. I must add that the relatively recent intrusion of "player agency" in the debate has made things even worse, for example look at the way @Maxperson reacted to my descriptions of what happened to a character after the description from the DM.

I don't need hard rules to know that you can't play my character. If you are altering what I said my character is doing, except to rule success or failure and narrate that, then you are in the wrong as the DM. You have your stuff to play and that does not include my PC. So if I declare that I am crawling and there is no appropriate in game event that would prevent it, such as the ground I'm going to crawl on collapsing into a sinkhole, then you have to narrate my PC crawling. You don't get to tell me that my character is going to crawl faster or walk or run or anything else.