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

[James Gasik]

There's a trend of people playing 5e assuming everything from 3e still applies unless otherwise contradicted.

It might have been the case in other editions too.

To be fair, there's a trend of people playing 5e who assume everything from AD&D still applies unless otherwise contradicted. So definitely the case in other editions.

 

[plisnithus8]

There's a trend of people playing 5e assuming everything from 3e still applies unless otherwise contradicted.

It might have been the case in other editions too.

I honestly don’t know if that trend is people who like old rules and use them despite them not being official or people who actually believe old rules arbitrate 5e. Surely the idea of 5e simplification and core rule books is enough to know that players/DMs aren’t supposed to go buy all of the previous edition books to know the 5e rules.

The only instance I can think of where lead blocks magic is in the Detect Magic spell where it says, “The spell can penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt.”
That, however, seems like it is based on density, not a special property of lead. Nothing seems to link the prohibition to Teleportation nor prevent Teleportation from working through a dungeon, mountain, or lead-walled room.

 

[Bacon Bits]

There's a trend of people playing 5e assuming everything from 3e still applies unless otherwise contradicted.

It might have been the case in other editions too.

I mean, WotC has repeatedly said they're not interested in reprinting the lore from previous editions and that the previous books are there for use.

I think it's stranger to assert that a revision of the rules necessarily invalidates all prior lore, even if nothing new contradicts it. I can't think of any media that works like that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I honestly don’t know if that trend is people who like old rules and use them despite them not being official or people who actually believe old rules arbitrate 5e. Surely the idea of 5e simplification and core rule books is enough to know that players/DMs aren’t supposed to go buy all of the previous edition books to know the 5e rules.

Think of 5e's 'simplification' like the fragmenting of dinosaur DNA. People fill in the gaps with bits of 3e and 2e until it turns out 5e was breeding in the steam tunnels and its offspring might have made it to the mainland, putting the whole world in danger.

 

[plisnithus8]

I mean, WotC has repeatedly said they're not interested in reprinting the lore from previous editions and that the previous books are there for use.

I think it's stranger to assert that a revision of the rules necessarily invalidates all prior lore, even if nothing new contradicts it. I can't think of any media that works like that.

There is a big difference in a DM using lore from previous editions to help fill in gaps in a campaign and a DM using old mechanics to make rulings and saying that is the way WotC says it should be done. WotC has not said that mechanics from old editions should be considered 5e RaW. WotC has repeatedly said that 3 core rule books are all you need.
They have also said that DM can stray from the rules as they see fit, but those changes don’t affect RaW for everyone else.

This is a game rule (mechanics) question, not a media lore (fluff) debate. Games that have new editions don’t expect previous edition rules to apply that aren’t stated in the new.

 

[Bacon Bits]

There is a big difference in a DM using lore from previous editions to help fill in gaps in a campaign and a DM using old mechanics to make rulings and saying that is the way WotC says it should be done.

Why?

WotC has repeatedly said that 3 core rule books are all you need.

Sure, but there's a difference between "minimum rules set" and "the totality of the rules." After all, you can't say that all the supplements don't contain rules.

This is a game rule (mechanics) question, not a media lore (fluff) debate. Games that have new editions don’t expect previous edition rules to apply that aren’t stated in the new.

I don't consider the two distinct.

Neither does 5e. That's part of the whole "natural language" thing they were going for, remember? Separation of "fluff" and "mechanic" is, at best, how prior editions worked. However, I don't think you'll actually find any rules in any edition of the game that says you should intentionally ignore "fluff." I don't even know that they've ever released guidelines on interpreting rules. The closest would be the introduction to Sage Advice, which takes the same wholistic approach.

 

[plisnithus8]

Why?
Sure, but there's a difference between "minimum rules set" and "the totality of the rules." After all, you can't say that all the supplements don't contain rules.
I don't consider the two distinct.
Neither does 5e. That's part of the whole "natural language" thing they were going for, remember? Separation of "fluff" and "mechanic" is, at best, how prior editions worked. However, I don't think you'll actually find any rules in any edition of the game that says you should intentionally ignore "fluff." I don't even know that they've ever released guidelines on interpreting rules. The closest would be the introduction to Sage Advice, which takes the same wholistic approach.

The game doesn’t expect rules from previous editions, because the game is not made for just people who have the old editions. If a DM wants to include old rules, the they absolutely can but that doesn’t change the rules for everyone else. There are the 5e RaW, and then there are the rules any DM picks and chooses which can be old rules.

A new edition often makes updates/additions for clarification or balance; these are retroactive. I’ve never seen a new edition say, in order to understand these new rules, you’ll need to go buy all of the old editions.

Supplements contain new rules. Sage advice clarifies rules. But those are clarifications moving forward and are official or quasi-official in a way much more unifying than picking and choosing from past editions. A new errata could clarify that a caster is immune to Thunderstep damage in a way that expecting everyone to decide on which rules from all of the previous might apply does not.

Plain language is not the same thing as lore either. When JC says that a spell only does what it says it does, he’s not saying go research all of the lore from all of the editions to find something that was there that we decided not to include in the spell description. If 5e teleportation is inhibited by lead, the spell would say so (like Detect Magic does).

 

[Vaalingrade]

The point is, in the absence of any actual rules about what can stop teleportation, the only rule 5e has is 'ask your DM' and a lot of DMs played 3e where an obscure rule said lead worked. That's all there is to it.

 

[plisnithus8]

Player: “I cast Teleport to get out of the dungeon.”

DM: “Unfortunately, the room has lead walls so Teleport doesn’t work.”

P: “Do I lose my spell slot?”

DM: “I’ll have to figure out which edition that lead prohibition was in. It’ll take a few minutes.”

P: “Nevermind. I have plenty of spell slots and will just cast Thunderstep to get just beyond the gate. I realize that’s still within the range of the damage, but I have plenty of hit points.”

DM: “Luckily, when you teleport, you actually go to another dimension. The damage occurs during the time you were gone so no damage to you.”

P: “But Orcus said if I left this dimension before I found his McGuffin I’d be cursed. Where does it say that Thunderstep takes me to another dimension?”

DM: “It might be in the same edition as the rule about lead, but I’m not sure.”

 

[Vaalingrade]

And this is why rules should be written in precise language and be through in your design even if it's just to be a placeholder for IP.