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

[Swarmkeeper]

(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 )

But there is most definitely a non-zero number of players who will complain about encounter “balance” all the same.

So what's the point about making life difficult for characters by "nitpicking" on what they can do ?

Is someone advocating for ”nitpicking” around here?

 

[James Gasik]

As for nitpicking: Maybe? That was the general feeling I got from reading some earlier posts. I don't mind being mistaken at all.

As for complaining: sometimes a fight is hard. Like, holy carp, we're going to die, hard. And what makes an encounter hard is dependent on a lot of intangibles. Terrain, bad planning, resources available, luck of the die roll, tactics used by the other side- oh and the raw power of the combatants.

But I've seen "heroic" characters get steamrolled by too many kobolds, and powerful dragons flummoxed by a timely use of a spell or special ability. So all you can do sometimes is eyeball encounter balance and hope for the best.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

While my first inclination is to say that they take the damage, upon further consideration I feel like the caster is basically just using a 3rd level spell slot to cast a variation of Shatter at the 2nd level. While in a one-off usage it might be fun to punish them, really the player is probably just trying to make the most out of their precious spells known or prepared. Since I feel the game could generally afford to be less stingy with spells known or prepared, I feel the best call is letting them not take the damage if they don't want to take the damage.

 

[Maxperson]

Where in hell did you read that in my sentence ? If you choose to walk you walk. That's all. If you are rushing to avoid an AoE, you are definitely NOT walking, even with a simple move.

By RAW you are. Show me where it says that I have to rush with my readied action. By RAW I ready the action to move(not run, but move) when the target disappears. When the trigger happens all I have to do is move. Hell, I can get on my knees and crawl 15 feet if I want to, all before(according to you) the target reappears. If you want to say that doesn't happen, you need to show where any of that is forbidden.

And, pray tell, which six seconds are we talking about ? Six seconds is an entire round, for all participants. Even if the character is waiting for the teleport to happen to rush away, he might already have made a full move 3 seconds away, and there might even be remaining time after the teleport happens and before it's his turn again.

It's my PC. He did nothing but ready the action to walk, no, now I want to crawl 15 away when the trigger happens. The trigger is when the caster disappears.

 

[Maxperson]

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".

AD&D gave a rough idea of many hit points were meat. Presumably the fighters had more luck and skill at combat than the wizards. The rogues more skill and luck than wizards, but less than fighters who were bred for combat.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

In 5e 50% of hit points are explicitly not meat. The rest are some combination of meat and luck/skill/divine protection/etc.

 

[Maxperson]

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 )

It's not only not precise, it's deliberately bonkers. 1 of a monster can be a medium difficulty encounter, but it takes as many as 10 to be deadly?

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, 5e is simultaneously easy (compared to 3e) and stupidly hard to DM for. Monsters aren't terribly complex, but you can't just grab something at a given CR and say "Go!". Attack bonuses, hit point totals, and AC can vary wildly from monster to monster (I suspect, on the back end, that WotC designs monsters to have roles, just like they did in 4e, but didn't tell anyone). Some special attacks are just impossible for low level characters to deal with (what we used to call the Wight/Cockatrice problem- something a 1st level character can encounter can instantly kill you basically forever and there's nothing you can do about it).

You'd think by now they'd have figured this encounter design out by now...

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yeah, 5e is simultaneously easy (compared to 3e) and stupidly hard to DM for. Monsters aren't terribly complex, but you can't just grab something at a given CR and say "Go!". Attack bonuses, hit point totals, and AC can vary wildly from monster to monster (I suspect, on the back end, that WotC designs monsters to have roles, just like they did in 4e, but didn't tell anyone). Some special attacks are just impossible for low level characters to deal with (what we used to call the Wight/Cockatrice problem- something a 1st level character can encounter can instantly kill you basically forever and there's nothing you can do about it).

You'd think by now they'd have figured this encounter design out by now...

To improve your DM sanity, forget about criticizing the designers or the game itself. Neither is listening anyway.
Not to mention, good craftsfolk and their tools and all that.

Instead:
1. let go of trying to come up with "balanced" encounters - accept the fact that some combats will be cakewalks, some will be too deadly, and some will be juuuuuust right - and you won't necessarily know which is which until they are over
2. just create encounters that feel thematically appropriate for the campaign in general and the environment specifically
3. let the players determine how they want to approach challenges - let them know upfront that not every fight is winnable by force, sometimes talking is better than fighting, sometimes stealth is better than either, and sometimes its better to run away if the rabbit proves too powerful

 

[James Gasik]

That's good advice, you got my like, Swarmkeeper. Though I think the rules could stand to make running away easier. I mean, unless you can cast Thunderstep, that is. : )