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

[Irlo]

You just said they were the same thing!!!!! In the quote I just used to say that! Good God man! This is you!

"Of course, rounds and turns are the same thing, everyone knows this."

I beieve that was written sarcastically, because they are so clearly NOT the same things.

 

[Umbran]

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

Well, of course not. You haven't even defined what it means to "PROVE it"! What standard of proof do you require? Mathematical, scientific, or the legal "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Until you provide that, you can generally find a way to claim that the issue is not proven - and that's a frustrating exercise that builds nothing useful.

I submit that seeking "proof", on either side of this argument, is a fool's errand. Trying to force the thread into, "I am correct unless you prove me wrong," is not a constructive approach to discussion of games whose rules require interpretation. It is ultimately a bit of an ego-contest, rather than a way to come to understanding about things.

 

[overgeeked]

I beieve that was written sarcastically, because they are so clearly NOT the same things.

Poe’s Law.

 

[Maxperson]

It sort of does, however, there are multiple possible explanations:

• You go through a transitive plane.

You literally shouted me down on this. According to you in several posts, the caster is not going through any other dimensions or planes.

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.

And in 5e it's blocked by effects that block extradimensional effects. Why is that?

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.

5e all but says it with what things stop teleportation. You can ignore the extremely, incredibly, blatantly obvious implication that it's through extradimensional space if you want to...

 

[Maxperson]

I beieve that was written sarcastically, because they are so clearly NOT the same things.

Okay, but since nobody was claiming that they are the same thing, why would he say that? Of course rounds and turns aren't the same. They just cover the same period of time.

 

[Lyxen]

You can for every roll I mentioned.

Sorry, but saying it is not proving it.

Um, no. You can see the swing begin towards you and interrupt it before it even gets close to completing(the roll to hit).

How do you know that this precise swing is the one that you need to interrupt ? Compared to all the other swings going on ? Or is it that, in your game, a fighter only swings once every 6 seconds ?

You can see the body shift position as it must in order to attack. If you've ever taken martial arts, you learn to watch the body for the movement that indicates not only that an attack is coming, but from which side and what kind of attack. You can perceive intent in the eyes and facial language. There is a TON to perceive with an attack, before it ever gets to the roll.

Sure, and every single adventurer has training in the martial arts, and that reading is automatically successful, and no martial artist is himself good enough to feint and conceal his intentions...

Sorry, but no, first nothing that you say appears even slightly in the RAW, and second it is extremely debatable in combat anyway. Ihave done multiple martial arts, fencing, kendo, and it simply does not work that way.

You can, by RAW, perceive the hit before it does damage.

Give to me the precise sentence of the RAW that shows this perceivability BY THE CHARACTER.

We have spells and abilities that are used at that point and they could only be uses if such perception was possible.

And you have lost me again. Are you arguing for or against such perceivability ?

You just said they were the same thing!!!!! In the quote I just used to say that! Good God man! This is you!

"Of course, rounds and turns are the same thing, everyone knows this."

I have obviously failed at my "make irony visible" skill...

Yes, but your simultaneous portion is home brew. Nothing in RAW says or indicates that. RAW is only sequential. CAN they be simultaneous? Some of it can be if you want to make it that way for your game. Other parts like Readied actions cannot be. They explicitly interrupt the other guy's turn until you are finished with yours.

Again, prove to me that it's 100% sequential in narration. By the way, it would be really stupid to describe if people were really freezing in space until it's their turn again, maybe for a few minutes depending on the number of combattants.

The RAW day nothing about this, sorry, the rules may not be perfect, but they are not THAT silly.Actually, they say things like: "In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand." So no, creatures are not "freezing" until it's their turn.

I don't need hard rules to know that you can't play my character. If you are altering what I said my character is doing, except to rule success or failure and narrate that, then you are in the wrong as the DM.

And if you are describing the results of your actions, then you are in the wrong as a player.

You have your stuff to play and that does not include my PC.

And you have your character to play and it does not include the rest of the world and its impact on your character either.

So if I declare that I am crawling and there is no appropriate in game event that would prevent it, such as the ground I'm going to crawl on collapsing into a sinkhole, then you have to narrate my PC crawling. You don't get to tell me that my character is going to crawl faster or walk or run or anything else.

I'ms sorry, but if in combat, you describe your character crawling for 10 minutes, you are in the wrong as a player. "player agency" has its limits...

 

[Irlo]

I did prove it. My turn is the round.

This is what Lyxen was responding to.

 

[Lyxen]

Well, of course not. You haven't even defined what it means to "PROVE it"! What standard of proof do you require? Mathematical, scientific, or the legal "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Until you provide that, you can generally find a way to claim that the issue is not proven - and that's a frustrating exercise that builds nothing useful.

Are you kidding me ? ALl this discussion is about the rules, so it should not be hard to find a proof in the rules.

I submit that seeking "proof", on either side of this argument, is a fool's errand. Trying to force the thread into, "I am correct unless you prove me wrong," is not a constructive approach to discussion of games whose rules require interpretation. It is ultimately a bit of an ego-contest, rather than a way to come to understanding about things.

And I'm sorry but it's not. We are discussing rules. Sometimes it's usually not that hard to see if someone has a proof in the rules:

• Someone claiming: "rounds are about six seconds long" in 5e is easy to prove right, there is that sentence in the rules.
• Someone claiming: "rounds and turns are the same thing" is also easy to prove wrong, since the rules include the sentence "A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.", showing that they are indeed NOT the same thing.

The ONLY thing I'm saying is that there is no proof in the rules that, in Thunder Step, it's complete teleport first and thunder boom second. If people claim that it has to be that way according to the rules, they should be able to prove it using said rules.

Only... only the rules sustain no such claim, and there is actually a rather large support for the fact that it could be disappear => boom => appear, since the three phases are clearly apparent in the description.

 

[Maxperson]

This is what Lyxen was responding to.

It would be nice to talk to people that got(or didn't choose not to get) context. We have been discussing how long a turn takes, so in the context of the conversation, the context was clearly the length of the rounds and turns there, which are both about 6 seconds.

 

[Lyxen]

Okay, but since nobody was claiming that they are the same thing, why would he say that? Of course rounds and turns aren't the same. They just cover the same period of time.

And again, you have to prove it, especially since at the same time you advocate things like: "RAW is only sequential. " and "Each creature goes on its turn fully and then the next creature gets to move. End of story."

How can both be true if it's all sequential ? If I have 10 combatants, and each has a turn that lasts six seconds, and it's sequential, that means that the round lasts 60 seconds, how can it last only 6 seconds ?