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

I don't know why you are spamming the thread insisting that you are correct. Nearly 100 posts in a 17 page thread insisting that you know better. Strange.

And on the other hand, YOU are not insisting that you know better ?

But anyway. Yes the spell says exactly that - it says you move from one place to another instantaneously.

No, it does not. Once more, just read it, these are not the words of the RAW.

You are at A. Then you are at B. No time separates A from B. An explosion happens after you leave A. You must therefore be at B when it happens.

Again, no, if it was written that way, I would accept it. But it's not the way it's written. All your pretend "demonstrations" where you change the words of the spell will actually only demonstrate that you do not have enough support in the RAW.

It's really very simple and only made complicated by people trying to rules lawyer in a time delay into teleportation, by exploiting the fact that the rules conversationally talk about 'disappearing', as that's what an observer would see.

Just as other observers, and they were a number of them, would interpret your reading as a DM trying to frustrate the players by a much too strong reading of a spell, thereby diminishing their fun for no good reason.

What's being disguised by trying to exploit that language is that it isn't what the caster experiences. They don't disappear, they move from A to B instantly.

And, in between, just as instantly, there is a boom, while the caster is in a transit that just takes "an instant". :p

It works just as well, is more fun for the players, and violates neither the rules not even potential physics even in the real world. The only thing that it violates are apparently your personal convictions, and to be honest I don't really care about them especially with the way you are expressing them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It is totally inappropriate to tell him his reading is wrong and yours is correct.

I'm not the one who has put 100 posts into the thread insisting I'm right.

I'm happy to put one post in with my interpretation. Others seem to need to shout down alternative view which I view as equally inappropriate and rude.
 



Now back to the topic at hand, the issue comes down to when the spell deals damage. Is the caster present when the spell blasts people or not? Does the caster vanish, kaboom, and reappear? Does the caster vanish, reappear, and then the spell does damage?

Saying this all happens simultaneously turns the caster into a literal Schrodinger's Wizard.

It sort of does, however, there are multiple possible explanations:
  • You go through a transitive plane.
  • Your disperse as thunder when you go boom and rematerialise at the end
  • Just as in the real world, things are never absolutely instantaneous, when you go below a certain boundary (planck time anyone ?) things become indeterminate and you are actually neither here nor there
  • etc.
Note that 5e is really open because in previous editions, teleport for example was specifically explained as to how it worked through a transitive plane, so the presence of that transitive plane was necessary for the spell to work.

5e does no such thing, so it's up to the DM to choose one interpretation and provide the "magical" explanation if need be. Most DMs, I suspect, won't even bother, they will take the explanation that works the best for their players and no one will ask too many questions.
 

There is no 'in between'. Sorry if that's a problem for you.

I don't have any problem, actually, but you seem to have some since you apparently have the urgent need to rehash things that have been discussed previously, bringing absolutely nothing new to the table.

But if you can PROVE (not by your intimate conviction, not from real earth physics (although you would fail there as well, actually), but actual proof from the rules as written) that there is no "in between", I promise, I will recognise that you are absolutely right and that my interpretation is wrong.

Good luck, so far, no-one has been able to PROVE it.
 

I'm not the one who has put 100 posts into the thread insisting I'm right.

No, you are the one who, contrary to me who tries to put new things in every post, just posted again the same argument with no more proofs than the others but with an insulting twist in there. Did you feel that you contributed positively to the discussion ?

I'm happy to put one post in with my interpretation. Others seem to need to shout down alternative view which I view as equally inappropriate and rude.

Saying that there is another interpretation, just as valid, is "rude" ? How about telling people that they are ruleslawyers ? I guess the irony has not hit you yet, I hope it will...
 

I really, really don't want to introduce a concept of teleport spells having a moment where the teleportee is nowhere and thus briefly immune to literally everything. If that would be possible, then I feel it would be perfectly fair for PCs and other people in the setting to try to take advantage of that in other contexts too, and I feel that goes well beyond the intended function of such spells.
 

I really, really don't want to introduce a concept of teleport spells having a moment where the teleportee is nowhere and thus briefly immune to literally everything. If that would be possible, then I feel it would be perfectly fair for PCs and other people in the setting to try to take advantage of that in other contexts too, and I feel that goes well beyond the intended function of such spells.

I understand, just note that it's still instantaneous, and that very few things can happen during that time, if it exists. Moreover, since the caster can teleport anyway, he is already in a large sense immune to many things since he can be far off if he wishes...
 


Remove ads

Top