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

Since shield is cast "when you are targeted by a magic missile" and magic missile has an instantaneous duration, both shield and counterspell can have an instantaneous casting time.

Do you agree?
No. A reaction is not instantaneous. And there is no instantaneous casting time. If there were, the casting time rules and/or the reaction description would say so. You are still conflating casting time and duration.

PHB pg 202: Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.

One more point about the last extract, it shows that the game has a tendancy to be generous towards the players in its interpretation, because it's not fun to waste a ray or a missile on an enemy which would already be dead without it. I know some people will again say that "5e is easy mode", but it's also "5e recognises that the intention of a game is for players to have fun playing it".
This point we can agree on, even if we arrive at it from different angles. Indeed, even though it is from Dungeon World, I really take to heart the Sly Flourish advice that the DM should absolutely "be a fan of the characters".


Finally, I'd just like to say that I am most pleased that both you and @Maxperson reacted favorably to a post of mine and a post of @James Gasik - I feel like there we're finding some common ground here!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I'm a little annoyed about that rule being in the DMG, but I guess knowing is half the battle, thanks Maxperson. I'm so used to the DMG being terrible, I never check it for rulings on anything, lol.
The opportunity attack rules also support what I have been saying. The opportunity attack can specifically interrupt the trigger of "a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." It also says that this doesn't happen if the creature teleports, indicating very strongly that you cannot interrupt a teleport.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No. A reaction is not instantaneous. And there is no instantaneous casting time. If there were, the casting time rules and/or the reaction description would say so. You are still conflating casting time and duration.

PHB pg 202: Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.
A fraction of a second is instantaneous. It's also the amount of time a teleport takes to complete. A fraction of a second. Which is not even remotely close enough to crawl/walk/run away from a Thunderstep before it hits you, readied action or not.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
The opportunity attack rules also support what I have been saying. The opportunity attack can specifically interrupt the trigger of "a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." It also says that this doesn't happen if the creature teleports, indicating very strongly that you cannot interrupt a teleport.
I do agree that is strong evidence, but come on, WotC! Is it that hard to have rules that spell out what you intend? We shouldn't have to go sifting through the rulebooks with fine toothed combs to find evidence for how the game works.

 

Lyxen

Great Old One
No. A reaction is not instantaneous.

I'm sorry, but you would have to prove that.

And there is no instantaneous casting time. If there were, the casting time rules and/or the reaction description would say so. You are still conflating casting time and duration.

And, again, I think I have proven that the casting time of shield is after the magic missile has been cast, and therefore during its instantaneous duration, and so is the casting time of the counterspell targeting the shield.

PHB pg 202: Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.
This point we can agree on, even if we arrive at it from different angles. Indeed, even though it is from Dungeon World, I really take to heart the Sly Flourish advice that the DM should absolutely "be a fan of the characters".

Indeed.

Finally, I'd just like to say that I am most pleased that both you and @Maxperson reacted favorably to a post of mine and a post of @James Gasik - I feel like there we're finding some common ground here!

Although we sometimes disagree, it's mostly because we are too similar... :)

There is a healthy dose of respect in me for @Maxperson, if not necessarily for all his arguments. :)
 

A fraction of a second is instantaneous.
Is it always though? A half second is instantaneous to you? Why didn’t WotC just say a spell casting time of “a reaction” is instantaneous? Maybe I’m missing something, but you now seem to be arguing both sides. Can a reaction spell interrupt a teleport in progress since, as you claim, they are both instantaneous?

It's also the amount of time a teleport takes to complete.
Agreed

A fraction of a second. Which is not even remotely close enough to crawl/walk/run away from a Thunderstep before it hits you, readied action or not.
Also agreed.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
The opportunity attack rules also support what I have been saying. The opportunity attack can specifically interrupt the trigger of "a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." It also says that this doesn't happen if the creature teleports, indicating very strongly that you cannot interrupt a teleport.

That has nothing to do with the duration, it's a question of crossing the intervening space (or, more precisely, getting out of range why not defending yourself enough, since you can do it by disengaging).
 
Last edited:

I do agree that is strong evidence, but come on, WotC! Is it that hard to have rules that spell out what you intend? We shouldn't have to go sifting through the rulebooks with fine toothed combs to find evidence for how the game works.

I think you are mistaken.
Look at a any code of law. You will notice that it tries really hard to be absolutely fool proof, covering any corner case...
And still experts find ways to interpret them differently or even finding loopholes...
... and to add injury to insult they are absoluteley inentelligible to non experts and absoluteley boring.

I really don't want such a book as my PHB or DMG...
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
I think you are mistaken.
Look at a any code of law. You will notice that it tries really hard to be absolutely fool proof, covering any corner case...
And still experts find ways to interpret them differently or even finding loopholes...
... and to add injury to insult they are absoluteley inentelligible to non experts and absoluteley boring.

I really don't want such a book as my PHB or DMG...
I'm not talking about Habeus Corpus here, just how hard is it to add a word here and there so we don't have 30 page debates about things like this? If you don't want people interfering with teleport spells, just say "hey, you can't do that" in the Ready rules. That's not a corner case, Wizards teleport around all the time, and I'm sure there are individuals who want to do something about it.

And before anyone says anything about word and page count, just remove this from the PHB, that should clear up enough space.
 

Attachments

  • dungeons-and-dragons-5E-players-handbook-art-7.jpg
    dungeons-and-dragons-5E-players-handbook-art-7.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 23

I'm not talking about Habeus Corpus here, just how hard is it to add a word here and there so we don't have 30 page debates about things like this? If you don't want people interfering with teleport spells, just say "hey, you can't do that" in the Ready rules. That's not a corner case, Wizards teleport around all the time, and I'm sure there are individuals who want to do something about it.

And before anyone says anything about word and page count, just remove this from the PHB, that should clear up enough space.

Thing is, the word here and there is not needed. I played for almost 10 years (dndnext included), and did notneven notice that there might be a problem if it is not exactly stated that it is disappearnce -> reappearance...

D&D is a cooperative game, not adversary like magic the gathering, so it does not have to and should not be that strictly coded, because such rules are not fun.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
I could debate "not needed" when I look at discussions like this. Sure, each group is able to hash out how things work when unusual circumstances come up. But on a forum, it becomes really hard to discuss things when the rules basically say "I'm sure you can figure it out", and we're all basically playing different games from each other not because we have deviated from RAW, but because there wasn't much RAW to begin with.

I want to preface this next statement by saying I am extremely happy that you haven't had issues Mr. Lich (and respectfully, I would never wish to annoy a Lich), but I have had so many debates about rules over the years I've been gaming that it really, really, chafes me when someone says "well I've never had any problems at all!".

It's like a car that has a slight defect that in 1 out of a billion times you go to make a right turn, the airbag deploys. "Well, that never happened to me, so I don't see what the complaint is!"*

*I'm not saying that you are saying that. I am not ascribing any malice or dismissal to anyone's posts in particular. That's just how it feels to me sometimes. Whether this is a real problem or something my mind has conjured up to make me grumpier about the world is best left to professionals who I can't possibly afford to consult.
 

Whilst I agree that the rules could be written with more clarity, the issue here arises from inventing things the rules do not mention. Most of the rules work pretty well, if you assume that there are no hidden meanings. Like if the caster was not meant to take the damage in the Thunder Step area, they would have clearly said so, instead of expecting you to figure it out by extrapolating a time when the teleportee is nowhere from the word 'disappear' being used. I assume that they would explicitly mention if such existed, but they don't. The other spells where the caster takes no damage clearly say so.
 
Last edited:

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
With regards to Thunder Step, yes, you're right, the spell almost 99% is written to work that way. My contention has mostly been about why anyone would want to enforce that ruling, because I just see it as a bad spell with a very narrow usage as a result, but I was perfectly willing to engage in a debate about whether that's really the design intent.

When the side debate about reactions arose, I was much more willing to debate that topic, because the PHB section on them is very loose, and it felt that most people simply had an opinion about it, and were willing to focus on one thing the rules say and ignore the other ("it can't interrupt the trigger so it can't interrupt the action" when the trigger is not stated to be an action).

Or getting hung up on what it means for a spell to be instantaneous beyond what it says under "spell durations". And some spells that are instantaneous, simply are not. Feeblemind being a good example. It's magic obviously does have a duration. So "instantaneous" here, means it can't be dispelled, not that it's magic "takes place in an instant and is gone".

Or my example of an instantaneous spell that cannot resolve in an "instant", because it's effect is to force the victims to use their reaction in a specific way.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Whilst I agree that the rules could be written with more clarity, the issue here arises from inventing things the rules do not mention.

You mean like that teleporting takes 0 time, disappearance, transport, appearance ? :p

Because that is certainly not in the rules that I can see.

Most of the rules work pretty well, if you assume that there are no hidden meanings. Like if the caster was not meant to take the damage in the Thunder Step area, they would have clearly said so, instead of expecting you to figure it out by extrapolating a time when the teleportee is nowhere from the word 'disappear' being used. I assume that they would explicitly mention if such existed, but they don't. The other spells where the caster takes no damage clearly say so.

And again, I think the spell looks pretty cool if there is disappearance + boom, and the the caster reappears.

And for me, the game is way more about imagination of that kind than about strict rules, and is more about the players having fun and being creative than the DM enforcing strict rules so that his world is more "dangerous".
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
It's implied though. Because actual Teleport says that. So does Teleportation Circle. When other spells say "teleport", since that's not a defined keyword, where do you go to figure out how teleporting works? Likely, the teleport spell.

Is it lazy? Yeah but it at least indicates the presence of a rule. Because all we're left with is "teleport really doesn't mean anything and works however we think it does", which leads to debates like...uh, well, this one.

The more I discuss 5e with people, I find you kind of get three camps- those that are annoyed by the rules not being more specific. Those who apparently just grok the logic of the rules and can easily go "it says teleport, so refer to teleport" without needing text that says "see teleport", and those who are on the fence about it.

At some point, you realize you're the old man yelling at clouds and just have to shrug and go with the flow.
 

You mean like that teleporting takes 0 time, disappearance, transport, appearance ? :p

Because that is certainly not in the rules that I can see.
Nor it needs to. Because it not being so would require the telportee being nowhere and literally immune for a moment, and if that was the case it should (and I'd argue would) explicitly say so.

And again, I think the spell looks pretty cool if there is disappearance + boom, and the the caster reappears.

And for me, the game is way more about imagination of that kind than about strict rules, and is more about the players having fun and being creative than the DM enforcing strict rules so that his world is more "dangerous".
You can think that and you can run it that way in your games. Nothing wrong with that. But I'd argue that it is not how it is intended to work, as if it was the spell would be written differently. They would not hide the immunity under such tortured reading of the rules, they would just flat out say that the caster takes no damage like they do with other spells.

And whilst I like creative use of spells, IMO, just ignoring the limitations the spells may have is not creative. In fact, I feel it is quite the opposite. Working with the limitations might generate some creativity.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Nor it needs to. Because it not being so would require the telportee being nowhere and literally immune for a moment, and if that was the case it should (and I'd argue would) explicitly say so.

And then, other examples prove you wrong. For example, Maze does not say that the creature is "immune". Not for banishment. And yet, they are certainly "immune".

You can think that and you can run it that way in your games. Nothing wrong with that. But I'd argue that it is not how it is intended to work, as if it was the spell would be written differently.

Just as argue that if it was meant to be interpreted one way, the first sentence would have been one, extremely simple to write. But it's not the case.

They would not hide the immunity under such tortured reading of the rules, they would just flat out say that the caster takes no damage like they do with other spells.

See above.

And whilst I like creative use of spells, IMO, just ignoring the limitations the spells may have is not creative. In fact, I feel it is quite the opposite. Working with the limitations might generate some creativity.

That is an old debate, but I've never seen real creativity being bred by limiting readings of rules.
 

And then, other examples prove you wrong. For example, Maze does not say that the creature is "immune". Not for banishment. And yet, they are certainly "immune".
But they explicitly say that the character is somewhere lese. Teleport spells don't. So that just strengthens my point. You have just flat out invented the teleportee being shunted to nowhere bit.

Just as argue that if it was meant to be interpreted one way, the first sentence would have been one, extremely simple to write. But it's not the case.
Considering that this thread is 30 pages long, I can't really argue that it wouldn't have been good idea to write the spell more clearly. That being said, I think the RAI is clear enough. IMO it is not a reasonable assumption that they would have buried the immunity behind convoluted interpretations and extrapolations in the manner you suggest.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
Well we'd like to think they didn't bury any immunity. But as we've seen just with defining teleport itself, let alone "instantaneous", the rules sometimes expect you to just figure out how game elements function. Either way, having squinted and looked at the rules a certain way, I can't argue with the ruling (or perhaps, "confirmation of how Thunder Step works as written" is a better way to say it). Why anyone would bother is where I'm confused. It's just not that good of a spell! You want to teleport out of trouble? Better spell exists. You want to blast things in an area? Better spell exists?

You want to teleport 15 to 30' (no less) and blast things in an area, hoping you've been surrounded by enough enemies to be worth it, while also being more than 10' away from any allies? I guess, but how often does that actually come up?

I think when I finally can get back to gaming, I'm going to have to examine encounters and see if I can pick out times when I'd be happy to Thunder Step to see if I'm right or wrong on this.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Is it always though? A half second is instantaneous to you? Why didn’t WotC just say a spell casting time of “a reaction” is instantaneous?
Reactions must be faster than normal actions. There's nothing in-between normal actions and reactions but instantaneous. For a Counterspell to work, you have to first recognize that a spell is being cast, then figure out if it's close enough to be countered, then you can begin your Counterspell. If it wasn't instantaneous(half a second to cast), it would be too late to counter any spell you wanted to counter. Especially since you can counter a Counterspell, which means it has to be megafast to be able to do that.
Maybe I’m missing something, but you now seem to be arguing both sides.
Nope. :)
Can a reaction spell interrupt a teleport in progress since, as you claim, they are both instantaneous?
No. It can't. You can't split an instantaneous effect up. Even if you were waiting for it to happen, but the time you perceived the instant effect being done, it would be over and done with before you could begin to react with your quick action.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top