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

[James Gasik]

The game doesn't try to rule how fast things move in velocity. How fast is a lightning bolt? An arrow? A magic missile? A character fleeing after being hit by Dissonant Whispers?

All we know is that everything is resolved in a loosely defined 6 second combat round. In this thread I have pointed out that lightning bolts are not too fast to react to (certainly not 270,000 mph) because people can make Dexterity saves to avoid half damage.

I pointed out that instantaneous spells can take longer to resolve than "an instant", in the case of Dissonant Whispers, which damages you, then forces you to take a reaction to move.

I have pointed out that "instantaneous" is only defined in the magic rules, and page 203 of the PHB only discusses it as a duration, and why it can't be dispelled.

But other instantaneous effects like counterspell can prevent them. Shield can even be cast as a reaction to avoid magic missile damage, which, as it lacks a saving throw and doesn't target AC, could be argued as being too fast to react to.

I pointed out reactions are never timed. They happen after their trigger. What that trigger can be is a particular event you can perceive. There is no guidance on this otherwise. Let's say I ready an action to cast Fireball. I have a Wall of Force up.

Can I stop concentrating on Wall of Force (something that takes no action) before I attempt to cast Fireball in response to my trigger? The rules don't say either way.

All of this and more, and still people insist that reactions work in a way that cannot be proven without applying extra language to the rules. That somehow "instant" means "zero time" despite the fact that it must take some time, or no one could counterspell it or make a Dexterity saving throw against it.

Now as this is 5e, and individual DM's can make rulings, that's fine if that is what you believe. That's fine if that's how your groups play it.

But there is room for other interpretations that are equally valid without trying to bring in real world physics in an abstract combat system that literally makes no sense in reality.

D&D time is relative. Characters can deliver epic soliloquies and monks can dash 80 feet in the same time it takes a 1st level character to fire a nocked arrow from a bow or a wizard to cast a magic missile. It doesn't make any sense to begin with, and was never intended to.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'd say the only reason the spell specifies "Immediately after you disappear" is to make it clear the blast happens after the teleport...

 

[Irlo]

Deleted

 

[James Gasik]

Oh right, sorry. Bad example. Replace with: can I stop concentrating on Wall of Force (something that takes no action) in response to an ally attempting to cast a readied fireball that the wall would block? The rules don't say either way. : )

 

[Elon Tusk]

I have pointed out that "instantaneous" is only defined in the magic rules, and page 203 of the PHB only discusses it as a duration, and why it can't be dispelled.

I don't think that the "instantaneous" duration for the entire spell is the important part of this discussion; it doesn't matter how long all of the spell effects take in total.

The question revolves around whether the caster reappears before the damage from the boom happens. The use of the word "after" shows that the teleport and the boom are 2 parts of the spell happening at different times during the spell's duration. The question is whether the boom portion of the spell can interrupt the teleport portion, which can only happen if the teleport is not immediate. We do have a clue regarding the speed of teleport based on the original spell of that name which describes it as happening "instantly," which is the definition of immediate or "without gap in time or space." If we ignore the most common definition of "instantly"'/immediately," and say that there is a tiny moment of time that the description doesn't mention, then it should be applied to both the "instantly" happening teleport and the "immediately after" boom. To say that one instance of this spell's immediatel/instantly is longer than the other, ignoring the order of the sentences and the use of the word "after," seems to add complication to game that tries to use plain languahge and simplify, using outliers from other genres or non-standard definitions in order to add something to a spell that the spell description does not give any indications of happening.

 

[James Gasik]

Well maybe the whole reaction discussion did derail things a bit. I think though it illustrates that it might be possible for something to occur between the teleport and the explosion. That we don't really know if the explosion happens as you teleport and before you reappear, or if it occurs for a brief moment you are in "t-space".

All I've been trying to debate is that both interpretations are fairly valid, and the rules don't really cover this level of detail (on purpose, I might add). I err on the side of the spell being more useful than having a critical flaw where it blows up in your face if you can't teleport far enough, and I fail to understand how allowing the caster to teleport and deliver the damage even without teleporting far enough is in any way exploitative for us to really be having this debate.

If you don't like the spell, don't allow it. Because the narrower it's usefulness becomes, the less often it will ever be used. Personally, the idea of teleporting nowhere to hit enemies all around me is kind of silly, since there are better ways to do that sort of thing, but that kind of extra utility is very important to classes like the Sorcerer.

Wizards can always just get a better spell for the job.

 

[dave2008]

Sure, but the amount of time is so incredibly small that there wouldn't be time to move in-between the disappearance and re-appearance, and would be faster than the speed of sound.

Says who? I mean it is really defined. There is definitely fiction that shows it can take time, and some that it would not.

To be clear, I am not looking for a "correct" answer. I don't think there is one.

 

[Maxperson]

Says who? I mean it is really defined. There is definitely fiction that shows it can take time, and some that it would not.

To be clear, I am not looking for a "correct" answer. I don't think there is one.

Instantaneous is too quick to dispel, even with dispel magic readied and used instantly. If it's over so fast that an instant dispel can't affect it, it's faster than someone walking, or even hurrying or running.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

If you don't like the spell, don't allow it.

1. I don't think anyone here has been saying they don't like the spell (although, to be fair, I've largely skimmed/skipped the wall-of-text responses)

Because the narrower it's usefulness becomes, the less often it will ever be used.

2. We have a warlock with this spell because it is useful to them and we know the ruling will be that if the teleportation is not more than 10', the warlock is taking damage, too

Personally, the idea of teleporting nowhere to hit enemies all around me is kind of silly, since there are better ways to do that sort of thing,

3. It's a reasonably decent (and flavorful) escape and/or rescue spell which adds injury to the insult. Why is that silly?

but that kind of extra utility is very important to classes like the Sorcerer.

4. Sorcerers should take Careful Spell if they want to play fast and loose with any AoE spells.

Wizards can always just get a better spell for the job.

What job do you envision and what spell(s) would be better?

 

[plisnithus8]

There is definitely fiction that shows it can take time, and some that it would not.

To be clear, I am not looking for a "correct" answer. I don't think there is one.

Other fiction or other game systems may have other rules for things; I don’t think they apply in 5e RAW in this case. For instance, Star Trek teleportation has been mentioned a few times as taking time. To be fair n Star Trek they are Transporters that “teleport” by transforming matter into energy and then moving the particles rapidly. In 5e, teleport causes something to disappear and reappear at a certain location; the intricacies of modern science are mostly ignored.

Teleport happens instantly. The game uses plain language — the common definition of “instantly” is immediately or without a gap in time. The boom happens after the disappearance. The first sentence of the spell’s description says the caster teleports to a different location. Then it says immediately after the disappearance the boom happens. The order of the sentences and the use of the word after help clarify what happens. Fabricating a gap in time that has no defined duration and therefore either a vague “t-space” location or the addition of unexplained chronological magic seems to add powers and complexity and confusion that the spell doesn’t even seem to hint at. There are demi-planes and time spells, but neither is mentioned in the spell description.

If a DM wants to interpret the spell differently, the rules allow for that. But that doesn’t make that ruling RAW; it amends those rules. Ruling that the caster takes damage is not punishing a player; it’s the most basic (non-complicated) understanding of the spell’s description. If the player doesn’t realize they will be a part of “each creature” in range taking damage, the DM probably should warn them because their PC has likely had more experience with the spell. I don’t see the cost/benefit aspects of the spell informing this interpretation. It’s dangerous just like a fireball.