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

[Lyxen]

No. YOU'RE the one getting it wrong, or at least assuming that you have it correct. It only says, "Trigger" without defining what it is.

Once more, a proof that you simply don't read the RAW: "First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction."

Hence, very simply, a trigger is a "perceivable circumstance". Nothing more, nothing less.

It says trigger. It says the trigger has to be perceivable. It does not say what the trigger entails in order for it to complete.

Just read the rules instead of imagining things and trying to put our imagination in words. The rules are clear as they are. There is no "entailing", no consequences, it's extremely simple: "When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger."

Don't invent anything else, don't link the trigger to anything, the rules don't do that.

Nor is yours. You are also inventing a rule that the trigger completes with the perceivable event.

Trigger = perceivable circumstance. That is the simple definition of it. So, I'm just substituting the words in the sentence and I obtain: "When the perceivable circumstance occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the perceivable circumstance finishes or ignore the trigger."

If my perceivable circumstance is "the caster disappears", which is totally perceivable if you are watching him (and he is of course visible, if you do that when he is on the other side of the wall and you can't even see him disappear, your declaration will fail and for good readon), it becomes:

"When the caster disappears, you can either take your reaction right after the caster finishers disappearing or ignore the trigger."

How can it be more simple and obvious ?

RAW does not say that. It only says that it must complete, not that the trigger doesn't include the remainder of whatever action/event is happening.

Since it says NOTHING, and the 5e rules only do what they say they do, you are INVENTING THINGS. Just apply the sentence above, without tying in things about actions WHICH DO NOT EXIST IN THE RULES.

And this especially when the rules tell you, again in very plain english: "If the reaction interrupts another creature’s turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction."

The "trigger = perceivable circumstance = the caster disappears" occurs, the REACTION INTERRUPTS ANOTHER CREATURE'S TURN. Does it say anything about completing anything ? It does not, so there is no such rule. Sorry.

It doesn't matter if you can define them. Nowhere does it say you can interrupt an instant effect and stop it so that you can take a very non-instantaneous action before the end of the instant effect.

Again, the 5e rules don't say anything of the kind, so IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE RAW. Are we clear about this ? Your preconceptions DO NOT MATTER FOR THE RAW.

You sit and argue how my crawling doesn't make sense, even though RAW says that's the way it works, but then argue the above that makes just as little sense and have no problem with it. You're being very inconsistent.

No, I'm inconsistent only when applying YOUR rules, which have nothing to do with the RAW, as clearly demonstrated above.

We're discussing how RAW says that, because your interpretation of Ready is probably wrong. If your interpretation was correct, they would not have written that dispel magic didn't work, because your interpretation would clearly allow it to work.

And yet, I have given you many reasons for it working exactly as the RAW says and as I explain it, and it causes no one any problem, except for your and YOUR INVENTED RULES.

Sure. The plane of Limbo disappears and triggers your readied action.

Tell you what. Go outside and try it. I guarantee you won't get far in an instant.

You are evading the question, showing that you have no answer for this, and zero proof in the RAW, as usual. So I can only conclude that you have, as predicted totally failed to find a rule explaining how long exactly a move is taking, how long an instant is, and whether a move can fit in an instant.

You are so stuck in your personal convictions that you don't even see that this is exactly what happens in genre fiction, and that because this is what the game simulates, it's not a problem at all.

1. Picking a target is EASILY perceivable. You have to set your body, begin to move that direction and any number of other perceivable indicators of you picking your target to attack. You'd likely have to make a perception check, but they are perceivable.

So now you have to make a perception check, right, I see you backpedalling really fast on this. Not fast enough though, once more you have zero proof in the RAW.

As for the real or simulated world, we will have to agree to disagree. Yes, when you are facing a unique opponent, it might not be too hard to see that he is attacking you. When you are surrounded by opponents, I clearly don't see you detect who is targeting what instantaneously for all adversaries. As you say, it might be a perception (I would personally use insight) check, but it's certainly not automatic.

2. Attack resolution. You can perceive the beginning of the swing, which is just as discrete an event as disappearing in the middle of the teleport effect.

And we are back to the fact that your awesome warriors only make one swing every 6 seconds, or maybe every 60 seconds, I still don't understand how long your turns are. So no, you might rule that way, but not only is it not in the RAW, if every swing that telegraphed as an attack, the warriors in my game would not be heroes, they would not even be level 1...

You can perceive a hit or miss, which is also a discrete event like a thunderclap in the middle of a thunderstep teleport effect. And you can perceive the discrete event of damage being done, just like you could perceive the reappearance of a teleport effect.

And I totally disagree here, once more. When there's a hit, the damage has already been done. Otherwise it's not a hit. So no, I once more disagree. First, RAW, you have zero support for that. And second, even in real or simulated life, a hit is only a hit if it does damage. Otherwise, it's called a miss. So you can't distinguish one from the other.

I absolutely deny it. You just claimed that elves cannot live in a city, because RAW is, "They live in places of ethereal beauty, in the midst of ancient forests or in silvery spires glittering with faerie light, where soft music drifts through the air and gentle fragrances waft on the breeze." That's patently ridiculous. What I just quoted from the book is pure fluff and has no force of rule at all. It's written sure, but there ain't no R there for it to be (R)AW.

It's still a RAW. You are allowed to disregard it in your campaign.

You're quoting a fluff description and ignore the hard rule about the sequence of combat that I quoted.

You mean, the sequence of combat that you understand so little that you 're not even sure if your rounds are about six seconds as written or if they last 60 seconds ?

Nawp! Never said they see everything.

Hmmm, let me see: "By RAW people on the battlefield notice almost everything unless the DM says otherwise during special circumstances."

True, you did say "almost" when there are "special circumstances", so walls are special circumstances ? Having people fighting around you, blocking your view and taking your attention are "special circumstances" ? What do you mean by "special circumstances" ?

I said they see everything around them except when the DM rules a special circumstance, like being on the other side of a wall, prevents it.

Yes, walls are truly special...

It does not. It states in very, very general terms that they are aware of dangers all around them and that is why they see the formerly hidden creature coming towards them.

So being aware of danger means seeing almost everything unless there are special circumstances ?

So first, no, sorry, that rule is unitary, it's a simple sentence. While I agree that "most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around", I personally find it very fluffy ( ) and I don't think it's appropriate to derive a specific rule for hidden creatures approaching in the open to an instant view of anything happening on the battlefield (except for these dawn "exceptional circumstances" walls, of course.).

You're good at this whole Strawman things. Knock it off. I never said anything about seeing through walls. That was your fictional addition to my statement.

It's just to show that no, very simple circumstances which have nothing "special" about them clearly mean that you don't see or perceive everything on a battlefield.

When someone has to resort to lots of Strawmen the way you are, it's a sign that they've lost the argument and feel forced to start twisting what the other guy is saying in order to attempt(and fail) to appear like they are correct.

It's interesting, because it's exactly the way I feel about the way YOU argue. You are so desperate to impose your personal views on ready actions that you go about making totally unsustained broad statements about people able, all the time to act upon any swing happening everywhere on the battlefield because they are "aware". Just stop dithering and introducing new rules that exist only for you. The RAW is simple, there are very few rules.

It is very specifically less than instant. RAW does not label movement as instantaneous(except for teleportation movement), so it isn't. Instantaneous actions and effects are labeled as such.

Actually, they are not. Sorry. This describes only some spells and effects. But tell me, again, where it says how long a move takes ? Where it says that it cannot happen in an instant ? I'll be waiting for the EXACT rule, mind you. Because, as far as I know, actions do not have a duration set, none of them.

You cannot by RAW completely your movement in an instant. Period. The move action is not labeled an instantaneous action. It cannot be faster than teleportation.

There is no such thing as an "instantaneous action", actions are not labelled. In particular move actions do not have a duration. So please, once more, in the RAW, show me the EXACT RULE that says that teleportation is faster than a move ? Teleportation takes an instant, I can absolutely describe a fantasy movement taking but an instant, if the distance is short, whereas I can perfectly describe my teleportation as "star trek like", where the caster disappears and reappears fairly slowly. The RAW supports exactly that.

What teleportation does that normal movement does not is the fact that you don't cross the intervening space, for sure. But the duration, in milliseconds ? Nothing in the RAW.

I know, it's shocking to you and your personal convictions, but it's all they are, personal. They are not in the RAW. Simply they are not. So please stop trying to impose your personal convictions, the game is way more open than this.

 

[Irlo]

You cannot by RAW complete your movement in an instant. Period. The move action is not labeled an instantaneous action, so even if you move only 5 feet, it takes too long. It cannot be faster than teleportation.

Uh ... cite the rule, please, since you state this so emphatically.

There is no move action for the rules to label as an instantaneous action. There is no rule about how long movement takes within a combat round.

There are no action types that are labeled by how long they take to complete.

The ready action allows you to move as a reaction. A reaction is an "instant response." Therefore, by RAW, readied movement is instantaneous.

 

[Maxperson]

Uh ... cite the rule, please, since you state this so emphatically.

There is no move action for the rules to label as an instantaneous action. There is no rule about how long movement takes within a combat round.

Things that are instantaneous are labeled as such. If you want to believe that walking or even running is as fast as teleportation, you do you.

 

[Irlo]

Things that are instantaneous are labeled as such. If you want to believe that walking or even running is as fast as teleportation, you do you.

We’re talking about RAW — as you’ve pointed out repeatedly, right? — not what makes sense, not what we we think RAW should be.

By RAW, reactions are instant responses. If you want to ignore that rule and still claim you’re arguing from rules as written, well, you do you, as they say.

 

[hbarsquared]

The right answer is for the DM to ask the player, "Are you sure...?" and to do what is fun.

Assume the player is going to be effected by the damage. But why not an Arcana check, or allow the player a saving throw with advantage against their own spell? And give the player a chance to decide of it's worth the risk.

 

[Maxperson]

We’re talking about RAW — as you’ve pointed out repeatedly, right? — not what makes sense, not what we we think RAW should be.

By RAW, reactions are instant responses. If you want to ignore that rule and still claim you’re arguing from rules as written, well, you do you, as they say.

A reaction is an instant response, not an instantaneous effect. Different terms are being used. One allows you to interrupt a turn to do something. The other is for how fast a specific effect is. When you ready an action, you can instantly interrupt a turn to take an action and moving is not instantaneous.

 

[Irlo]

A reaction is an instant response, not an instantaneous effect. Different terms are being used. One allows you to interrupt a turn to do something. The other is for how fast a specific effect is. When you ready an action, you can instantly interrupt a turn to take an action and moving is not instantaneous.

Citation needed,

 

[James Gasik]

That doesn't mean that instantaneous =/= instant. I know it seems like that's a contradiction, but I remember the early days of MtG, when creature activated abilities were called "fast effects". In an issue of Duelist (oh yeah, I'm old), one of the designers said "fast effects are like instants, but we never said they are instants, or are resolved as such".

Obviously, they changed their mind on this topic, but the point remains that they didn't clearly define what the difference was, or that there even was a difference, until they felt they needed to. Instantaneous is defined solely by the rules for spells. All we definitively know about reactions is that they resolve "after their trigger".

Until we get clear developer insight on this topic, that's all the rules say. You can select a trigger, your action resolves after the trigger. Shield resolves after it's trigger but can still negate an attack. Counterspell resolves after it's trigger, but can still cancel a spell.

We know this, because it's clearly spelled out that is what these spells DO. Just because something is not clearly spelled out isn't proof of anything. It may appear that there is a difference, that these discrete rules elements are called out as being different by the terminology used, but just like "fast effects", that's not necessarily true.

In absence of any clarification, the game remains, however you feel about it "rulings not rules". Any way a DM falls on this topic isn't objectively right or wrong- it just comes down to whether or not it makes the game more or less fun for all involved.

EDIT: I, for one, can't stand "rulings not rules" just because of debates like this. But some people still defend this game "design" and like it, and even though I think it's half-baked, I'm not the ultimate arbiter of what people should and shouldn't like.

Someone's reasons for preferring a thing are their own. Even when I point out that, "you know, this isn't always an advantage".

 

[Maxperson]

Citation needed,

That instant and instantaneous are two different terms? They're like different words man. Terms are specific. They don't change. You don't see necrotic and necroticky as the same term.

 

[Maxperson]

That doesn't mean that instantaneous =/= instant. I know it seems like that's a contradiction, but I remember the early days of MtG, when creature activated abilities were called "fast effects". In an issue of Duelist (oh yeah, I'm old), one of the designers said "fast effects are like instants, but we never said they are instants, or are resolved as such".

Obviously, they changed their mind on this topic, but the point remains that they didn't clearly define what the difference was, or that there even was a difference, until they felt they needed to. Instantaneous is defined solely by the rules for spells. All we definitively know about reactions is that they resolve "after their trigger".

Until we get clear developer insight on this topic, that's all the rules say. You can select a trigger, your action resolves after the trigger. Shield resolves after it's trigger but can still negate an attack. Counterspell resolves after it's trigger, but can still cancel a spell.

We know this, because it's clearly spelled out that is what these spells DO. Just because something is not clearly spelled out isn't proof of anything. It may appear that there is a difference, that these discrete rules elements are called out as being different by the terminology used, but just like "fast effects", that's not necessarily true.

In absence of any clarification, the game remains, however you feel about it "rulings not rules". Any way a DM falls on this topic isn't objectively right or wrong- it just comes down to whether or not it makes the game more or less fun for all involved.

EDIT: I, for one, can't stand "rulings not rules" just because of debates like this. But some people still defend this game "design" and like it, and even though I think it's half-baked, I'm not the ultimate arbiter of what people should and shouldn't like.

Someone's reasons for preferring a thing are their own. Even when I point out that, "you know, this isn't always an advantage".

MTG is not D&D and D&D uses specific terms. Those terms are not referred to differently. If something does fire damage, it's not also called heat damage, fiery damage, flaming damage and whatever else is kinda the same. Readied Actions do not make the action an instantaneous effect.