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


log in or register to remove this ad

Lyxen

Great Old One
Reactions must be faster than normal actions.

Why ? Is this a personal feeling, or is it RAW ? And if it's RAW, where is it said ?

There's nothing in-between normal actions and reactions but instantaneous.

So now, instantaneous is between normal actions and reactions ? I'm lost.

Just in general, I don't think that there is any rule about this, nor does there need to be.

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.

And doing that to counterspell a shield being cast on an instantaneous magic missile, how do you explain it ?

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.

It has to be, and even worse, you can counterspell as many times as there are combattants with the spell and an available reaction. It just goes to prove that there is no fixed duration, just "whatever time is needed for narration to make it sound cool".

No. It can't. You can't split an instantaneous effect up.

You keep repeating that, but Thunder Step is a clear counter-example. There is at least the teleport (maybe even in two parts) and the boom.

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.

Again, just your personal feelings, the RAW saying nothing of the kind, ever.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Why ? Is this a personal feeling, or is it RAW ? And if it's RAW, where is it said ?
You need to put less emphasis on what is exactly written and look at context and use. Context seems to be a weak point of yours. There's a 0% chance that a reaction is as slow or slower than normal actions. ;)
So now, instantaneous is between normal actions and reactions ?
By the time you can perceive something that happens in an instant, it's too late to react. So speed must be normal > reaction > instantaneous. This is backed up by the opportunity attack, which is explicitly fast enough to interrupt the trigger, not being fast enough to interrupt a teleporter leaving a space within reach.
And doing that to counterspell a shield being cast on an instantaneous magic missile, how do you explain it ?
Specific beats general. There is no such specificity in Ready Action.
It has to be, and even worse, you can counterspell as many times as there are combattants with the spell and an available reaction. It just goes to prove that there is no fixed duration, just "whatever time is needed for narration to make it sound cool".
No. One does not equal the other. Duration doesn't have to be, "whatever time is needed for narration to make it sound cool" in order for Counterspell to work in a chain like that.
You keep repeating that, but Thunder Step is a clear counter-example. There is at least the teleport (maybe even in two parts) and the boom.
Nothing is split. The thunder happens after the disappearance, but nothing says it happens before reappearance.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
You need to put less emphasis on what is exactly written and look at context and use. Context seems to be a weak point of yours. There's a 0% chance that a reaction is as slow or slower than normal actions. ;)

That's what I thought, only your personal feelings, not a smidge of RAW support.

As for me, there will be actions shorter than some reactions. For example, drawing a second weapon is going to be shorter than making an attack as a readied action.

Wisely, the RAW don't create arbitrary constraints like this. You are free to do whatever you want in your game, but please don't try to pretend that these are anything but your own preconceptions.

By the time you can perceive something that happens in an instant, it's too late to react.

Again, just your personal views, this is not what happens in genre fiction. If you want to restrict yourself, fine, but once more, not a whiff of RAW support.

So speed must be normal > reaction > instantaneous. This is backed up by the opportunity attack, which is explicitly fast enough to interrupt the trigger, not being fast enough to interrupt a teleporter leaving a space within reach.

Once more, you are reading the OA wrong. It's not a question of the means used, for example you cannot interrupt spells, so there is no reason for which a teleport would be interrupted. And it's not a question of position, since you can disengage and make the exact same move. OA are about moving from being "engaged" to "away" without any precaution like disengaging.

Specific beats general. There is no such specificity in Ready Action.

Do I need to remind you that you were speaking about Counterspell ? sigh

No. One does not equal the other. Duration doesn't have to be, "whatever time is needed for narration to make it sound cool" in order for Counterspell to work in a chain like that.

The fact that one can insert as many reactions inside whatever period of time you want to define just shows that there is no such thing as fixed periods of time. They don't exist in the rules, any constraint that you fix is uniquely your own.

Nothing is split. The thunder happens after the disappearance, but nothing says it happens before reappearance.

This is not what I'm saying. Thunder Step is just a proof that your statement of "You can't split an instantaneous effect up" is contrary to the RAW. THe spell is instantaneous but contains AT LEAST two (and possibly) three effects, distinct and in sequence. This proves that the instantaneous effect of the spell can be split up (and as a reminder, the RAW is very clear, each spell has ONE effect whic is the whole description, with very few exceptions like Guards and Wards, I have provided the citation many times now).
 

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.

I agree that some rules could be written more clearly. But I am very serious that I believe it is better to err on the side of too few rules instead of too much rules.
The Idea of having fool proof rules is wishful thinking at best.
If it is just a word here and there, I am on your side, but if the cure is worse than the sickness, I accept to live with the sickness.
Edit: I quoted the wrong post of yours. Sorry.
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
That's what I thought, only your personal feelings, not a smidge of RAW support.
If by none, you mean some, you would be correct. RAW provides the context that shows that there is no chance of reactions being as slow or slower than normal actions. That is RAW support, even if it's indirect.
As for me, there will be actions shorter than some reactions. For example, drawing a second weapon is going to be shorter than making an attack as a readied action.
Drawing a weapon is free as part of the attack.
Once more, you are reading the OA wrong. It's not a question of the means used, for example you cannot interrupt spells, so there is no reason for which a teleport would be interrupted. And it's not a question of position, since you can disengage and make the exact same move. OA are about moving from being "engaged" to "away" without any precaution like disengaging.
No. The OA is purely about interrupting those leaving reach. It makes an exception for teleport. Why? BECAUSE TELEPORT IS FREAKING FAST. Too fast to interrupt and hit the guy leaving.
This is not what I'm saying. Thunder Step is just a proof that your statement of "You can't split an instantaneous effect up" is contrary to the RAW. THe spell is instantaneous but contains AT LEAST two (and possibly) three effects, distinct and in sequence. This proves that the instantaneous effect of the spell can be split up (and as a reminder, the RAW is very clear, each spell has ONE effect whic is the whole description, with very few exceptions like Guards and Wards, I have provided the citation many times now).
No. The reason it says after you disappear as that it has to tell you when the thunder happens. The choices are 1) Before you disappear, and 2) after you disappear. Clearly it wouldn't make sense to make it before, so they went with after. After does not mean that it interrupts the teleport itself. That's your assumption and that assumption is incorrect based on the context of a myriad of examples and other rules.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
If by none, you mean some, you would be correct. RAW provides the context that shows that there is no chance of reactions being as slow or slower than normal actions. That is RAW support, even if it's indirect.

And once more, zero proof, direct or even indirect. Which is a good thing considering the direct proof of the contrary that I have given you.

Drawing a weapon is free as part of the attack.

Wrong, on both counts. First, it's not part of any attack in 5e, it just a free interaction with an object and not linked to an attack. Second, I said, on purpose because I know that rule, a SECOND weapon (for two-weapon fighting for example).

No. The OA is purely about interrupting those leaving reach. It makes an exception for teleport. Why? BECAUSE TELEPORT IS FREAKING FAST. Too fast to interrupt and hit the guy leaving.

And it makes an exception for people withdrawing, is that because they are freaking fast too ? It's ridiculous, by the way, Teleport is not fast, it just does not cross the intervening space.

No. The reason it says after you disappear as that it has to tell you when the thunder happens.

It is still ONE instantaneous spell being split. Honestly, every single time you try to tell that things are RAW< you get them wrong, it's happened on every single topic in this post.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
And once more, zero proof, direct or even indirect. Which is a good thing considering the direct proof of the contrary that I have given you.
You've given none. Not one shred of evidence of any kind that says reactions are slower than regular action. C'mon man.
Wrong, on both counts. First, it's not part of any attack in 5e, it just a free interaction with an object and not linked to an attack. Second, I said, on purpose because I know that rule, a SECOND weapon (for two-weapon fighting for example).
Care to try again?

"You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack."
And it makes an exception for people withdrawing, is that because they are freaking fast too ? It's ridiculous, by the way, Teleport is not fast, it just does not cross the intervening space.
No. That's because they are taking care not to be attacked. That you argue that teleport is not fast is...............................something else.
It is still ONE instantaneous spell being split. Honestly, every single time you try to tell that things are RAW< you get them wrong, it's happened on every single topic in this post.
It's not being split at all. It's just telling you when the thunder happens. Nothing there indicates that it happens before reappearance. It just has to happen after disappearance, because if it happened before, the caster would always be hit.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
You've given none. Not one shred of evidence of any kind that says reactions are slower than regular action. C'mon man.

I have given you the example of drawing a second weapon. Simple.

Care to try again?

"You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack."

It's just an example, it does not have to be part of an attack. It's for free, during the move and the action: "the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action: draw or sheathe a weapon."

Nethertheless, a second interaction (drawing another weapon) takes your full action. So basically, drawing two weapons including one for free takes your full action.

No. That's because they are taking care not to be attacked. That you argue that teleport is not fast is...............................something else.

This is amusing, once more, the reason is not that teleport is fast or not, is that you don't open yourself to be attacked, since you don't move away. Teleport is not that fast, it takes a full action to cast anyway.

It's not being split at all.

You don't have an instantaneous spell SPLIT into a teleport and a boom then, happening in sequence ?
 


Lyxen

Great Old One
You two have been arguing this, with pedantry and sophistry, for over a week?

Indeed, it's a bit a question of principle at least on my part, of people trying to impose specific views on an open edition like 5e. They can do whatever they want in their campaign, but trying, without any support from the actual rules, to claim to have the only interpretation of the Holy RAW is something that I have a problem with. Free your imagination, free your game.
 

James Gasik

Legend
At one point, Maxperson even threw in the towel, but he was back for the next round. It's just a difference in ideologies I suppose. Every time I'm like "well, it seems that Lyxen is probably wrong, because 5e doesn't split hairs like this", someone will chime in with something I didn't consider, like the Battlemaster's Riposte. I don't think there is a definitive answer- whether that's intentional on WotC's part or laziness is up for the individual to decide.

EDIT: forgot that wasn't in this thread. Here's the link-

D&D 5E - Invisibility, non-instantaneous spells, and spell effects
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I have given you the example of drawing a second weapon. Simple.
The second action isn't a reaction, so not an example of a reaction being faster than an action. Action = action =/= reaction slower than action.
Nethertheless, a second interaction (drawing another weapon) takes your full action. So basically, drawing two weapons including one for free takes your full action.
Okay. Maybe using an off hand is awkward.

Still not an example of a reaction being slower than an action. ;)
This is amusing, once more, the reason is not that teleport is fast or not, is that you don't open yourself to be attacked, since you don't move away. Teleport is not that fast, it takes a full action to cast anyway.
Er, casting time is irrelevant to how fast teleport is. Teleport gets you from one world to another, millions of miles away in half a second. Want to argue again how it's not that fast?
You don't have an instantaneous spell SPLIT into a teleport and a boom then, happening in sequence ?
No. You have a teleport and then a boom that goes off after the teleport happens, which is why it specifies after disappearance and not before disappearance. There is no split.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
At one point, Maxperson even threw in the towel, but he was back for the next round. It's just a difference in ideologies I suppose. Every time I'm like "well, it seems that Lyxen is probably wrong, because 5e doesn't split hairs like this", someone will chime in with something I didn't consider, like the Battlemaster's Riposte. I don't think there is a definitive answer- whether that's intentional on WotC's part or laziness is up for the individual to decide.

For me, it's clearly intentional, the game has been designed to be open, from the natural language instead of specific game jargon (or at least limiting that as much as possible) to the clear intent NOT to do like 4e which was designed to be technically perfect: "An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D."

It does not mean that the rules are perfect and without mistakes, of course, so the two effects can add on to each other. but for me that openness to support many types of games, not only those who seem "logical" to some people based on personal criterions.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
At one point, Maxperson even threw in the towel, but he was back for the next round. It's just a difference in ideologies I suppose. Every time I'm like "well, it seems that Lyxen is probably wrong, because 5e doesn't split hairs like this", someone will chime in with something I didn't consider, like the Battlemaster's Riposte. I don't think there is a definitive answer- whether that's intentional on WotC's part or laziness is up for the individual to decide.

EDIT: forgot that wasn't in this thread. Here's the link-

D&D 5E - Invisibility, non-instantaneous spells, and spell effects
The Battle Master Riposte ability doesn't split an instantaneous effect. It happens in-between attacks, which by RAW are not instant as you can attack, move 5 feet and attack a second time, move 10 feet and attack a third time, then move 15 feet and attack a fourth time. Attacks have time in-between for a reaction like Riposte to occur.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
The second action isn't a reaction, so not an example of a reaction being faster than an action. Action = action =/= reaction slower than action.

And what I'm saying is that an action (drawing two weapons) certainly takes more time than quite a few reactions that one can think about, like attacking someone.

Okay. Maybe using an off hand is awkward.

Tsss, it might be drawing your main hand. It's just the second one that you do. It might actually be just drawing your main hand (which you can usually do for free) but after you opened a door for free. The length of time that any action takes is purely arbitrary for narration.

Er, casting time is irrelevant to how fast teleport is. Teleport gets you from one world to another, millions of miles away in half a second. Want to argue again how it's not that fast?

And how is that relevant to an opportunity attack ? You are not there, it's what counts. Teleport could take one week to get you there and it would not matter, since you would not cross the intervening spell.

No. You have a teleport and then a boom that goes off after the teleport happens, which is why it specifies after disappearance and not before disappearance. There is no split.

Once more, Thunder Step is an instantaneous spell. Do we agree that it's the case ? Netevertheless, it's SPLIT TEMPORALY INTO (AT LEAST) TWO DISTINCT PHASES, which do NOT overlap.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
So weird to insist that the rules of the game are open then tell someone else their interpretation is wrong because the rules don't support the interpretation.

It's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that insisting that there is ONLY ONE interpretation is wrong, it's not the case. I'm not saying the teleport then boom is wrong, I'm saying it's right, but the other one "disappear / boom / appear" is right as well.

What is wrong is insisting that, because of personal preconceptions (rather than actual rules), someone else's interpretation of the pure rules is false.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
And what I'm saying is that an action (drawing two weapons) certainly takes more time than quite a few reactions that one can think about, like attacking someone.
Sure, it takes more time than an attack or can. Some attack happen quickly. Not instantaneous quickly, but more quickly than you can draw two weapons. Other attacks are slower. 🤷‍♂️
And how is that relevant to an opportunity attack ? You are not there, it's what counts. Teleport could take one week to get you there and it would not matter, since you would not cross the intervening spell.
What's not relevant is your argument about intervening space. The only requirement for an OA is "Left reach." Is someone teleporting away leaving reach? Yes. Would that trigger the OA if an instantaneous effect could be interrupted? Also yes. It's exempted from the OA because teleports happen too quickly to react to.
Once more, Thunder Step is an instantaneous spell. Do we agree that it's the case ? Netevertheless, it's SPLIT TEMPORALY INTO (AT LEAST) TWO DISTINCT PHASES, which do NOT overlap.
We agree that the spell once cast is instantaneous. It has exactly two instantaneous phases, the second of which starts a split second after the first one completes. Phase one is teleportation. Phase two is thunder once the teleportation occurs and the caster has disappeared.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Sure, it takes more time than an attack or can. Some attack happen quickly. Not instantaneous quickly, but more quickly than you can draw two weapons. Other attacks are slower. 🤷‍♂️

So we agree that a standard action which can also actually be something so quick that it can be done while moving or attacking is actually shorter than things can be done as reactions ?

Sorry, but once more, there are simple counterexamples to all your attempts at giving precise durations to any action or action type. None of your constraints are anywhere in the RAW.

What's not relevant is your argument about intervening space. The only requirement for an OA is "Left reach." Is someone teleporting away leaving reach? Yes.

Is someone disengaging leaving reach ? Is someone going invisible leaving reach ? Is someone using etherealness leaving reach ? All of these could be crawling away. Speed has nothing to do with it. Again, you would have to prove that it's the "speed" of teleportation (I'm using quotes) since you have been unable to prove that there is any definitive "speed" to teleportation, teleporting 5 feet in "an instant" with its casting time of one action is actually probably much slower than stepping 5 feet away) that prevents the OA.

Would that trigger the OA if an instantaneous effect could be interrupted? Also yes.

No, it would not, because it's the mode of travel that counts, not the alleged speed.

It's exempted from the OA because teleports happen too quickly to react to.

Again wrong, the PH says: "You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction." Is someone pushing you causing you to move too fast too ? sigh

Honestly, you are now fetching the silliest things just to be able to contradict the RAW...

We agree that the spell once cast is instantaneous. It has exactly two instantaneous phases

So it's indeed SPLIT into two (according to you, for me, there certainly can be three). Thank you for finally admitting this. sigh

, the second of which starts a split second after the first one completes. Phase one is teleportation. Phase two is thunder once the teleportation occurs and the caster has disappeared.

So you have split an instantaneous effect into two instantaneous "phases", congratulations, you have contradicted yourself.
 

The Weather Outside Is Frightful!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top