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

[James Gasik]

This reminds me of an old discussion back when 3e was new about "Rogue time". Evasion was an ability that let you completely avoid damage from some attacks, and I had a few DM's get hung up on how, exactly, the Rogue was doing that. I posited that the Rogue was quickly finding some temporary cover (even enemies or allies) to protect them from the attack.

The DM I was talking to was like "but what about a fireball? It's all around him, how does he avoid that?"

"Perhaps he leaps out of the way? The ability says it doesn't work if the Rogue is immobilized."

"So let me get this right, you're saying the Rogue dashes 15' to safety, the back to his original position, all while this instantaneous spell is occuring? How does that work?"

Thanks to the Wachowski's, I had an answer. "Bullet time."

And that's how "Rogue/Monk time" became a running joke, as players with Evasion wuuld go out of their way to describe increasingly ridiculous ways their Evasion would protect them.

 

[Lyxen]

And that's how "Rogue/Monk time" became a running joke, as players with Evasion wuuld go out of their way to describe increasingly ridiculous ways their Evasion would protect them.

And that's the source of the difficulty for some DMs. It all depends on what you are looking for, your sense of verisimilitude and what breaks your suspension of disbelief.

Some people want a "realistic" game where they want an explanation for the "rogue in a fireball" situation, and the problem is that D&D does not provide any, because D&D is not that kind of game. D&D, rather, refers to truly heroic fights, I would say up to Marvel Avengers level especially at high level, without (or maybe even with) the floating capes. There is no scientific or reasonable logic there, only incredible gifted and trained heroes performing impossible feats.

Moreover, the one thing that these people don't take into account is the nature of hit points. Losing hit points is not receiving a wound, it's not necessarily flesh. For a paladin or a cleric, it might be more of a decrease of divine protection and favour. And for a rogue, it might be a decrease of his luck, maybe it's just that his legendary luck will protect him less next time until he runs out of luck and goes down.

And this is where the evasion comes in, maybe he was incredibly lucky in evading it, so much so that his next few strokes of luck will not be affected at all by the fireball. HPs are only a very, very abstract counter, and therefore so is damage and the avoidance of it.

 

[James Gasik]

The funny part about "hit points is not meat" (which I know is the intended explanation for them) is when you look at two factors: one, Constitution affects hit points*. Two, some classes get more hit points than others. Why?

I mean, really, think about that. Why does a Barbarian get more hit points? Because he's tougher, more rugged? Is he luckier than a Rogue? Have more divine protection than a Cleric?

*Obviously, hit points are at least partly meat, and that was never really debated. It doesn't seem terribly strange now, but in AD&D, when only certain classes could claim the benefits of Con above 16, it was pretty odd. Then you toss in healing spells being called, well, cure light wounds or healing word, as opposed to "boost morale" or "rally".

 

[Lyxen]

The funny part about "hit points is not meat" (which I know is the intended explanation for them) is when you look at two factors: one, Constitution affects hit points*. Two, some classes get more hit points than others. Why?

I mean, really, think about that. Why does a Barbarian get more hit points? Because he's tougher, more rugged? Is he luckier than a Rogue? Have more divine protection than a Cleric?

*Obviously, hit points are at least partly meat, and that was never really debated. It doesn't seem terribly strange now, but in AD&D, when only certain classes could claim the benefits of Con above 16, it was pretty odd. Then you toss in healing spells being called, well, cure light wounds or healing word, as opposed to "boost morale" or "rally".

We are drifting a bit afar from the discussion here, but still relevant in what hit point lost to a spell like thunder step means, in a sense. So yes, constitution affects hit points, but so does your class, although this has changed a lot from AD&D, HPs are much more average across classes. For me, constitution hit points have two reasons, one historical, and the other to give purpose to constitution as a stat, nothing more.

Also, remember that my point is not that "hit points is not meat", it's that "hit points are not only meat", which I think people accept since it's written in plain letters in all editions of the game. After that, there are some debates as to whether all hit points represent the same "percentage" of the combination, of whether some of the hit points are meat and others something else, etc. whether you need to be at least scratched when losing hit points or not, etc. 5e leaves is probably even more vague than other editions, especially with the way natural healing works, and it's perfect for me, every DM and their table can find the explanation that they like best.

 

[James Gasik]

It's all very vague though, and it affects the roleplay. You see, this 8 damage is a dangerous sword wound that almost killed me at 1st level. That 8 damage is a mere scrape, do to my amazing skill! This is why I miss "bloodied" from 4e, as a threshold for when "oh, things just got serious".

Back on topic, my opinion (and that's all it is) is that Thunder Step is a quick escape from a dangerous situation that punishes people for being too close to the caster. You already have to be careful not to hit allies with it. To further say "in situations where you can't actually teleport 30', due to close quarters or no free spaces to move into, this spell is also dangerous to YOU" is a bit much. And really, what's the problem here? So occasionally the caster wants to damage everything adjacent to him without moving? I'm sure there are better spells for that already, so to my mind, that's just incidental utility, and not using the spell to it's full potential.

 

[Lyxen]

It's all very vague though, and it affects the roleplay.

Indeed it does. This is also why I think it's good to have tiers of play. Although not precise, they give you an example of the kind of game you could be having at these levels, and what is really dangerous for characters of these levels. At low levels, swords are dangerous for the body. At high level, you really start worrying about your soul.

You see, this 8 damage is a dangerous sword wound that almost killed me at 1st level. That 8 damage is a mere scrape, do to my amazing skill! This is why I miss "bloodied" from 4e, as a threshold for when "oh, things just got serious".

I agree that "bloodied" was a great mechanism if a bit artificial (this is a great summary of 4e for me, by the way ), once that I sometimes uses for 5e because it's incredibly easy to have powers recharge and being used as a reaction anyway, for example. That being said, mythic monsters are another good mechanism as well as similar mechanism from around the web to change the power sets by phases.

Back on topic, my opinion (and that's all it is) is that Thunder Step is a quick escape from a dangerous situation that punishes people for being too close to the caster. You already have to be careful not to hit allies with it. To further say "in situations where you can't actually teleport 30', due to close quarters or no free spaces to move into, this spell is also dangerous to YOU" is a bit much. And really, what's the problem here? So occasionally the caster wants to damage everything adjacent to him without moving? I'm sure there are better spells for that already, so to my mind, that's just incidental utility, and not using the spell to it's full potential.

While I agree with you (rare edge case anyway since it's always better to take some distance, really little harm done, major drawback about allies still present, "benevolence" towards player is good for a fun game, etc.), in the end, both interpretations are fine, they just fit different tables and play styles, that's all.

 

[James Gasik]

I guess to me, it smacks of my old AD&D DM's asking me to make an Intelligence check to place a fireball so that it doesn't accidentally blast my allies. Yeah, um, my character is a Wizard, he's practiced magic for much of his life, and he's smarter than anyone sitting at this gaming table. I'm pretty sure he knows how big his spell is and...wait, what's that? You want a Wisdom check for that instead?

 

[Lyxen]

I guess to me, it smacks of my old AD&D DM's asking me to make an Intelligence check to place a fireball so that it doesn't accidentally blast my allies. Yeah, um, my character is a Wizard, he's practiced magic for much of his life, and he's smarter than anyone sitting at this gaming table. I'm pretty sure he knows how big his spell is and...wait, what's that? You want a Wisdom check for that instead?

Funny, I remember that as well, and you're right, it's a bit of the same thing, some DMs resenting what they feel is "easy mode", although on the other hand I completely agree that "easy mode" in AD&D (not that anyone ever thought it existed or called it that) and in 5e is really not the same thing.

It's a bit like comparing the original X-Com with is reboot, or games like ghost and goblins to any game coming out these days.

 

[James Gasik]

Ghosts and Goblins, the original Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden...games used to be hard! Now if you play Super Mario Brothers and can't beat a level, the game can do it for you!

 

[Lyxen]

Ghosts and Goblins, the original Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden...games used to be hard! Now if you play Super Mario Brothers and can't beat a level, the game can do it for you!

Indeed, which is why 5e receives quite a bit of "easy mode" comments from people coming from previous editions, and why some DM really don't want it to become "easy mode++", at least in their view.

As mentioned before, my views are really different, whatever power you give the characters, the DM (and that's another good thing about 5e, the lack of a precise encounter calculator so that players can't complain of the difficulty of encounters and their appropriateness to their level ) has all the power to make challenges as hard as he wants anyway. So what's the point about making life difficult for characters by "nitpicking" on what they can do ? If there is real abuse, fine, but I don't think I've ever seen the equivalent of the abuse for example from 3e anywhere in 5e.