D&D 5E (2024) Cloud of Daggers / Teleport Question

[DragonLancer]

Apologies if this seems like a really silly question but I want to make sure that I am getting the follow correct.

In one of my two 2024 campaigns, one of the players is a big fan of using Cloud of Daggers as battlefield control. It's a great spell and they use it well. It does however, have a option that some of us are not sure about.

"On your later turns, you can take a Magic action to teleport the Cube up to 30 feet."

The player in question has used this to teleport the cube around corners out of sight. Not far but along the lines of "We know it's a corridor around the corner, so I can move there even though I haven't seen it." So far we've gone with that. However one of the players isn't happy with that interpretation. He points to the wording in the Teleport spell:

"The destination you choose must be known to you, and it must be on the same plane of existence as you."

He thinks because it uses the phrase Teleport it would follow the same logic, but I can't see anything in the 2024 rules that supports that - although I admit I may have just missed it.

I want to get this right. Not just for this campaign but for 5th edition in general. So, what you allow the teleporting of the Cloud of Daggers around a corner out of sight? Is there something in the general rules that would say you must know where it is being teleported? Just so I can clarify and give a definite answer.

Thanks for your help and advice.

 

[Basic Expert]

I believe line of sight is the intended limitation. A reading of the rules could allow teleportation to unseen spaces, but I wouldn't allow it to an area unfamiliar to the caster, even if they could reasonably deduce it was there (i.e. teleport it into a room they've never seen into). The spell is plenty useful enough as is.

It's funny that your player is using text for the teleportation spell to bolster his argument. In the same vein, you could have him roll on the teleportation outcome table for this.

 

[Plaguescarred]

While Cloud of Dagger spell has nothing to do with the Teleport Spell, teleportations in and of itself has certain general rules to it as posted below. The Cube doesn't say you must see the teleportation’s destination so you don't. But if the Cube's destination space is blocked by a solid obstacle such as a wall, it instead appear in the nearest unoccupied space of your choice.

Teleportation: If the destination space of your teleportation is occupied by another creature or blocked by a solid obstacle, you instead appear in the nearest unoccupied space of your choice. The description of a teleportation effect tells you if you must see the teleportation’s destination.

 

[DragonLancer]

Thanks. So, they can drop it out of sight but if it would appear in something (aka a wall or door), it moves so it doesn't.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Exactly. So if combat occur near corridor or room layout the caster knows the configuration, it should be able to teleport the Cube out of view.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am no DnD 5 Expert, but I would actually see this less a question of teleport and more a rule of line of effect for spells. Generally you can't target stuff without line of effect, can you?

 

[mellored]

I am no DnD 5 Expert, but I would actually see this less a question of teleport and more a rule of line of effect for spells. Generally you can't target stuff without line of effect, can you?

Per the rules.

"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise"

So i don't see any issue going around a corner.

Though I always remind my players, if you can do it, so can the enemy.

 

[aco175]

The spell is a 5ft cube, so I was thinking it does not matter much since it would only hit one bad guy. To do that, you need line of sight. Then I thought some people have a 5ft cube land on the intersection of the grid and hit a 10ft cube instead. I would then think you need to see part of the space you are teleporting it to.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Per the rules.

"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise"

So i don't see any issue going around a corner.

Though I always remind my players, if you can do it, so can the enemy.

Agree with this, BUT, you also need to ask why the player is moving it to a specific location around the corner which they cannot see.

If they're moving Cloud of Daggers around the corner right on top of an enemy that the Player can see on the map but their Character cannot see, that's metagaming and I wouldn't allow it. Now say if they just wanted to move it around the corner to block an empty hallway in case enemy reinforcements arrive, that would be totally fine

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another way to consider the usage is this: "Is dropping Cloud of Daggers on enemies at all causing an unbalancing effect on the combats in the game?"

If the answer is 'No'... then what difference does it make whether the PC can "see" where the Cloud drops or not? I mean, if dropping the Cloud on anyone in the middle of their field of view each turn that they can see is fine and combat-balanced and just a standard bonus to damage and control bit to their turn... then why would doing it around a corner be an issue? Just because we "think" that it should be "against the rules" and thus we shouldn't allow it?

To me this is no different than any other thing where the rules tell us we "shouldn't" be allowed to do something, but the actual mechanical results are the same as a bunch of stuff we already can. So the rules telling us 'No' are there merely for aesthetic reasons, or trying to maintain a semblance of verisimilitude, or niche protection, or any number of other reasons why the game isn't allowing X while simultaneously allowing Y which is pretty much or exactly the same.

Frex: A player wants their Dwarf Rogue to use a "warhammer" as their weapon of choice because it fits their idea of their dwarven theming. But the Rogue weapon proficiencies don't allow the use of the "warhammer" because the rules decided on specific fluff theming for "generalized Rogues"... Simple weapons, and Martial weapons with the Finesse or Light property. Now a Rogue can use a Rapier for all their Roguish attacks without issue... thus a 1d8 Martial weapon that uses Dexterity for attacks and allows for all Rogue features to be used. Is there any reason why that 1d8 weapon couldn't just be a "warhammer" rather than a Rapier? No. Not at all. Other than the game rules fluffed this "allowed" 1d8 Martial Finesse Rogue weapon to only be a "rapier". So there's absolutely no game balancing reason why the player couldn't just use the Rapier's stats and refluff the weapon as a hammer of some sort if it made them happy. So in a case like that... just let the player get what they want because it literally affects nothing other than that player's enjoyment.

And thus by the same token regarding this Cloud of Daggers situation... if the player of the spellcaster is hitting an extra creature or two each combat with their Cloud of Daggers... with the only difference being those enemies are "out of line of sight" within the game world rather than out in the open... damage-wise and balance-wise there is zero difference. An extra hit or two with the spell being done in both situations, thus nothing for anyone to get bent out of shape about. So let the player have their fun and get a couple extra hits out of their Cloud of Daggers use. Where's the harm? Heck... from my perspective I'd just be thrilled that Cloud of Daggers was getting used AT ALL... so I wouldn't want to curtail its use whatsoever, LOL!