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

[Irlo]

It would be nice to talk to people that got(or didn't choose not to get) context. We have been discussing how long a turn takes, so in the context of the conversation, the context was clearly the length of the rounds and turns there, which are both about 6 seconds.

Yep, I think Lyxen missed your context and you missed theirs.

I don't want to belabour this point, because this is not a rewarding conversation for me and you didn't reply to my previous post on this matter, but how to you reconcile that claim with the fact that a character can, within a single round, potentially make two reactions (one before the turn and one after the turn)? How can a turn take the same time as a round when there's time within the round both before and after the turn?

 

[Lyxen]

You literally shouted me down on this. According to you in several posts, the caster is not going through any other dimensions or planes.

You are not reading what I write, what I said is that any DM can CHOOSE their OWN description, and that is ONE of the possibilities.

And in 5e it's blocked by effects that block extradimensional effects. Why is that?

Because they ALSO block "dimensional" effects like teleport: "Affected creatures can't move or travel using teleportation or by extradimensional or interplanar means"

If teleport was really extradimensional, why the "or" ?

5e all but says it with what things stop teleportation. You can ignore the extremely, incredibly, blatantly obvious implication that it's through extradimensional space if you want to...

First, there is no such thing, see above, if it was extradimensional, why include it as a separate category ? So you can read it that way, but since it's not prescribed, I can also choose to read it as purely "dimensional", and it's still 100% correct as part of the RAW.

And by the way, this is exactly the way I use it, because saying that it goes through a transitive plane causes trouble if that transitive plane is not available in the plane that you are on. And yes, there are colour pools between Astral and Ethereal, but it does not mean that, if you say that teleport goes through the ethereal plane, you can access it from Avernus. Or if you say that it works through the astral plane, that you can access it from the elemental plane of water.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, but saying it is not proving it.

It's obvious on its face. It is in fact possible to perceive everything I mentioned. You can shut your eyes and pretend what I'm saying hasn't been proven, though, if it makes you feel better.

How do you know that this precise swing is the one that you need to interrupt ? Compared to all the other swings going on ? Or is it that, in your game, a fighter only swings once every 6 seconds ?

This isn't 1e. You don't get 10 swings and only 1 is an attack. In 5e you get to make 1 melee attack until and unless you get the extra attack action, and then you can make more.

Sure, and every single adventurer has training in the martial arts, and that reading is automatically successful, and no martial artist is himself good enough to feint and conceal his intentions...

It doesn't take a martial artist to learn these things. Simply being trained in combat situations, like say your typical 1st level PC, is sufficient.

Give to me the precise sentence of the RAW that shows this perceivability BY THE CHARACTER.

Seriously? Now you're arguing that in order to perceive something, RAW has to say it's perceivable?

Go look at the Shield spell which the caster uses after he has been hit, but before damage is rolled in order to turn a hit into a miss, or at least try to. That simply is not possible without being able to perceive that moment.

And you have lost me again. Are you arguing for or against such perceivability ?

For. You can perceive lots of things.

Again, prove to me that it's 100% sequential in narration. By the way, it would be really stupid to describe if people were really freezing in space until it's their turn again, maybe for a few minutes depending on the number of combattants.

Let me ask you this. Do you wait until all 5 PCs and all 30 orcs have all moved and attacked/cast spells, to narrate the simultaneous melee? You don't narrate anything prior to that moment while the PCs and orcs are engaged in their sequential turns?

The RAW day nothing about this, sorry, the rules may not be perfect, but they are not THAT silly.Actually, they say things like: "In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand." So no, creatures are not "freezing" until it's their turn.

You can hinge your argument on non-rule fluff all you want, but here's the rule.

"The DM ranks the combatants in order from the one with the highest Dexterity check total to the one with the lowest. This is the order (called the initiative order) in which they act during each round."

Everyone in combat acts sequentially in initiative order, per RAW.

And if you are describing the results of your actions, then you are in the wrong as a player.

I never claimed to narrate anything as a player. I don't narrate. I dictate. The DM is told by me that my PC is crawling, and unless there is a valid in game reason like mind control or something to alter that, the DM is constrained by my declaration and his narration has to include my PC crawling.

I'ms sorry, but if in combat, you describe your character crawling for 10 minutes, you are in the wrong as a player. "player agency" has its limits...

Why? What if my PC is insane? Why can't my insane PC crawl around for the entire combat, or at least as long as it takes creatures to kill him while he does so?

You can talk to me after if it's disruptive to your game, but you have no right to change what I tell you my PC does, unless what I am declaring simply isn't possible.

 

[Maxperson]

How can both be true if it's all sequential ? If I have 10 combatants, and each has a turn that lasts six seconds, and it's sequential, that means that the round lasts 60 seconds, how can it last only 6 seconds ?

Because the rules don't make sense. What I am saying is RAW. It doesn't make sense. It's a necessary nonsense for combat to run. If you can't handle the lack of sense and you want to run combat as being simultaneous, go for it. Change it for your game.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't want to belabour this point, because this is not a rewarding conversation for me and you didn't reply to my previous post on this matter, but how to you reconcile that claim with the fact that a character can, within a single round, potentially make two reactions (one before the turn and one after the turn)? How can a turn take the same time as a round when there's time within the round both before and after the turn?

Turns are like hit points. They are abstract. If you only move, it took about 6 seconds. If you move and attack, it took about 6 seconds. If you move, attack and take one reaction, it took about 6 seconds. And so on.

 

[Maxperson]

You are not reading what I write, what I said is that any DM can CHOOSE their OWN description, and that is ONE of the possibilities.



Because they ALSO block "dimensional" effects like teleport: "Affected creatures can't move or travel using teleportation or by extradimensional or interplanar means"

If teleport was really extradimensional, why the "or" ?

Again, because some spells are explicitly for extradimensional function, like rope trick. Others are for another function, like teleportation, but which also happen to go through extradimensional space.

 

[chaochou]

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.

No there are two things - there is a teleport and then there is a boom.

You are artificially dividing the timing of the teleport into two things. They are one thing - you move from one place to another instantly. You are in place A and as you stop being in place A you are in place B. There is no inbetween.

Otherwise show me the rule that says where you are during this inbetween time that you claim exists. You can't, you can only post fanciful speculation.

You want to claim that because the word 'disappear' is used to describe teleport, that you can shoehorn a gap you've invented into the teleport, such that you don't move instantly - you want to claim that you appear later, at some indeterminate time according to rules not written anywhere.

You want to claim that you teleport, but without using what's written about teleport, except when it suits your purpose to claim that you must reappear.

However, in contradiction to your claim that you must reappear, the spell actually only says there must be a space for another creature moving with you to reappear in. But that could be in 25 years, or 200 years or 450,000 years time. The only reference to the timing is in the teleport spell, and that says its instant. Not a bit later, not sometime after anything bad which might have happened has gone away, but instant. A to B, seperated by exactly zero time.

After A and B happen, which both happen at T=0, then we get a boom. It says in the spell - after you disappear, which is also after you reappear, since those are seperated by no time.

It's all there. This is the absolute straightforward reading of the rule. It's even clear in the wording that 'disappear' is a descriptive continuation of the teleportation. The reason it is used is because the movement can be seen as events which are seperated by distance. But there is no support in the rules anywhere to suggest they are seperated by time.

You teleport yourself to an unoccupied space you can see within range. Immediately after you disappear [and therefore immediately after you reappear since both happen at the same time] a thunderous boom sounds.

 

[Lyxen]

It's obvious on its face. It is in fact possible to perceive everything I mentioned. You can shut your eyes and pretend what I'm saying hasn't been proven, though, if it makes you feel better.

And once more, you have failed to prove that the rules support your claim.

My view is way more nuanced, I just say that sometimes you can, sometimes you can't it all depends on circumstances and therefore, I use the 5e possibility fo make local rulings about this, without even contradicting the RAW.

This isn't 1e. You don't get 10 swings and only 1 is an attack. In 5e you get to make 1 melee attack until and unless you get the extra attack action, and then you can make more.

And that means that you only swing your sword once every six seconds, or actually every 60 seconds if there are 10 combattants ?

It doesn't take a martial artist to learn these things. Simply being trained in combat situations, like say your typical 1st level PC, is sufficient.

That is your very personal view, thanks for it, but I happen to have a different one.

Seriously? Now you're arguing that in order to perceive something, RAW has to say it's perceivable?

Do you claim that dice rolls are perceivable by characters in the game world ?

Go look at the Shield spell which the caster uses after he has been hit, but before damage is rolled in order to turn a hit into a miss, or at least try to. That simply is not possible without being able to perceive that moment.

Shield is different, it interrupts its trigger, as has been pointed out many times, it's not your standard reaction. The explanation for shield is indeed very dodgy and has nothing to do with perceivable circumstances, since the trigger is special.

For. You can perceive lots of things.

Or sometimes you can't, which is why there is a perception skill.

Let me ask you this. Do you wait until all 5 PCs and all 30 orcs have all moved and attacked/cast spells, to narrate the simultaneous melee? You don't narrate anything prior to that moment while the PCs and orcs are engaged in their sequential turns?

I narrate things exactly the way I want because, contrary to your claims, 5e (and previous editions, by the way) are not prescriptive about this. If two fighters are just trading blows in place, I will probably narrate the simultaneity of their exchanges with the combat going on about them. If something sequential happens somewhere in the fight that affects them, I will make it sequential.

This is why you are having trouble with all these rules and why you think that they don't make sense, it's not inherent to the rules, it's due to yourself introducing extra constraints that make them appear absurd. Let go of all your PERSONAL constraints, they don't appear in the rules, and the rules will look consistent to you too.

You can hinge your argument on non-rule fluff all you want, but here's the rule.

"The DM ranks the combatants in order from the one with the highest Dexterity check total to the one with the lowest. This is the order (called the initiative order) in which they act during each round."

Yep, that the act in which their actions are resolved. Does it means that they freeze in place while it's someone else's turn ? Nope, it does not.

Everyone in combat acts sequentially in initiative order, per RAW.

That's the order in which turns are taken. Does it say that all these actions take the entire length of the round as you've said before ? No, it does not because that would not be consistent in terms of duration.

I never claimed to narrate anything as a player. I don't narrate. I dictate. The DM is told by me that my PC is crawling, and unless there is a valid in game reason like mind control or something to alter that, the DM is constrained by my declaration and his narration has to include my PC crawling.

And if your PC is crawling, it's the DM's perfect right to say: "you start to crawl" and then boom, you die. Do you deny this ?

Why? What if my PC is insane? Why can't my insane PC crawl around for the entire combat, or at least as long as it takes creatures to kill him while he does so?

Please go and have a look at this video by Matt Colville.

You can talk to me after if it's disruptive to your game, but you have no right to change what I tell you my PC does, unless what I am declaring simply isn't possible.

And that is exactly what I'm saying. If you describe that your PC is crawling for 10 minutes to do his 15 feet during his move in combat, it's not possible. I'm not saying anything stronger than this.

Because the rules don't make sense. What I am saying is RAW. It doesn't make sense. It's a necessary nonsense for combat to run. If you can't handle the lack of sense and you want to run combat as being simultaneous, go for it. Change it for your game.

Doesn't it strike you as bizarre that millions of people running the game all over the planet have no problem with the 5e system making sense and that you are the only one around (that I know of) that claims that it does not make sense at all ? We must al be complete idiots not to see it.

Doesn't another explanation come to your mind, that it makes reasonable sense considering what it's depicting and that it's your view that is overconstrained and causing that "nonsense feeling" just for you ?

Turns are like hit points. They are abstract. If you only move, it took about 6 seconds. If you move and attack, it took about 6 seconds. If you move, attack and take one reaction, it took about 6 seconds. And so on.

So, basically, if there are two combattants moving in sequence, the first one moves for six seconds, the second for six seconds, end of round, and the round lasted 12 seconds. How do you reconcile this with the round being, EXPLICITELY IN THE RAW, about six seconds long ?

Again, don't you think that millions of people would have caught up to such an inconsistence if it existed ? Don't you think that it's only YOUR VIEW that makes it look inconsistent ?

Because I have absolutely no problem making it consistent, the only thing that you need to let go off is that each combattant dictates how long his turn lasts. Just let go of THAT bit, and it will start to make sense.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Guys, I'm sure that Max and Lyxen will come to an agreement any moment now and this is totally a worthwhile conversation and excellent use of both of their time!

 

[Lyxen]

No there are two things - there is a teleport and then there is a boom.

No, sorry, I will point them out to you CLEARLY in the spell description:

You are artificially dividing the timing of the teleport into two things. They are one thing - you move from one place to another instantly. You are in place A and as you stop being in place A you are in place B. There is no inbetween.

Again, prove it. Where is it said, in the rules ?

Otherwise show me the rule that says where you are during this inbetween time that you claim exists. You can't, you can only post fanciful speculation.

Do you have to me somewhere ? Are we not talking about magic here ? Can't you just disappear from a place and appear an instant later somewhere else ?

You want to claim that because the word 'disappear' is used to describe teleport

No, I claim that the word disappear just means what it says it means in plain english: disappear. Remember, in 5e, a spell only does what it says it does.

that you can shoehorn a gap you've invented into the teleport, such that you don't move instantly - you want to claim that you appear later, at some indeterminate time according to rules not written anywhere.

Actually, it's written, it's an instant later. Like all instantaneous spells, you know, they happen in an instant. Now good luck finding a definition for that anywhere in the rules.

You want to claim that you teleport, but without using what's written about teleport, except when it suits your purpose to claim that you must reappear.

"Teleport" is just a spell, just like "Dimension Door" or "Misty Step". None of these dive any precision about the time it takes to disappear and appear apart from the fact that it's "in an instant".

However, in contradiction to your claim that you must reappear, the spell actually only says there must be a space for another creature moving with you to reappear in. But that could be in 25 years, or 200 years or 450,000 years time.

You are not reading the spell in its entirety. The spell is instantantaneous, meaning that all of its "effects" happen in an instant, including the reappearance.

The only reference to the timing is in the teleport spell, and that says its instant. Not a bit later, not sometime after anything bad which might have happened has gone away, but instant. A to B, seperated by exactly zero time.

Ah, this is where you are, once again wrong. "In an instant" does not mean "zero time". Moreover, do you deny that the boom appears AFTER the disappearance ? This clearly indicates that, even with something happening "in an instant", there can be a sequence. Do you deny that there can be a sequence ?

Since there IS a sequence, what prevents the sequence from being "disappear" => "Boom" => "Reappear" ?

After A and B happen, which both happen at T=0, then we get a boom. It says in the spell - after you disappear, which is also after you reappear, since those are seperated by no time.

Again, you stand on nothing but your own conviction. Remember that the boom ALSO happens in an instant. So, by your computations, and be very precise about this, is it at T=0 or At T>0 ?

It's all there. This is the absolute straightforward reading of the rule. It's even clear in the wording that 'disappear' is a descriptive continuation of the teleportation. The reason it is used is because there are events which are seperated by distance. But there is no support in the rules anywhere to suggest they are seperated by time.

But there is, and I'm not the only one thinking there can be. I'm sorry, but your perspective is way too constrained by your own beliefs, but these appear nowhere in the rules, contrary to the fact that the words "disappear", "boom" and "appear" are in the spell description, and actually in that order...