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

[James Gasik]

I could debate "not needed" when I look at discussions like this. Sure, each group is able to hash out how things work when unusual circumstances come up. But on a forum, it becomes really hard to discuss things when the rules basically say "I'm sure you can figure it out", and we're all basically playing different games from each other not because we have deviated from RAW, but because there wasn't much RAW to begin with.

I want to preface this next statement by saying I am extremely happy that you haven't had issues Mr. Lich (and respectfully, I would never wish to annoy a Lich), but I have had so many debates about rules over the years I've been gaming that it really, really, chafes me when someone says "well I've never had any problems at all!".

It's like a car that has a slight defect that in 1 out of a billion times you go to make a right turn, the airbag deploys. "Well, that never happened to me, so I don't see what the complaint is!"*

*I'm not saying that you are saying that. I am not ascribing any malice or dismissal to anyone's posts in particular. That's just how it feels to me sometimes. Whether this is a real problem or something my mind has conjured up to make me grumpier about the world is best left to professionals who I can't possibly afford to consult.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Whilst I agree that the rules could be written with more clarity, the issue here arises from inventing things the rules do not mention. Most of the rules work pretty well, if you assume that there are no hidden meanings. Like if the caster was not meant to take the damage in the Thunder Step area, they would have clearly said so, instead of expecting you to figure it out by extrapolating a time when the teleportee is nowhere from the word 'disappear' being used. I assume that they would explicitly mention if such existed, but they don't. The other spells where the caster takes no damage clearly say so.

 

[James Gasik]

With regards to Thunder Step, yes, you're right, the spell almost 99% is written to work that way. My contention has mostly been about why anyone would want to enforce that ruling, because I just see it as a bad spell with a very narrow usage as a result, but I was perfectly willing to engage in a debate about whether that's really the design intent.

When the side debate about reactions arose, I was much more willing to debate that topic, because the PHB section on them is very loose, and it felt that most people simply had an opinion about it, and were willing to focus on one thing the rules say and ignore the other ("it can't interrupt the trigger so it can't interrupt the action" when the trigger is not stated to be an action).

Or getting hung up on what it means for a spell to be instantaneous beyond what it says under "spell durations". And some spells that are instantaneous, simply are not. Feeblemind being a good example. It's magic obviously does have a duration. So "instantaneous" here, means it can't be dispelled, not that it's magic "takes place in an instant and is gone".

Or my example of an instantaneous spell that cannot resolve in an "instant", because it's effect is to force the victims to use their reaction in a specific way.

 

[Lyxen]

Whilst I agree that the rules could be written with more clarity, the issue here arises from inventing things the rules do not mention.

You mean like that teleporting takes 0 time, disappearance, transport, appearance ?

Because that is certainly not in the rules that I can see.

Most of the rules work pretty well, if you assume that there are no hidden meanings. Like if the caster was not meant to take the damage in the Thunder Step area, they would have clearly said so, instead of expecting you to figure it out by extrapolating a time when the teleportee is nowhere from the word 'disappear' being used. I assume that they would explicitly mention if such existed, but they don't. The other spells where the caster takes no damage clearly say so.

And again, I think the spell looks pretty cool if there is disappearance + boom, and the the caster reappears.

And for me, the game is way more about imagination of that kind than about strict rules, and is more about the players having fun and being creative than the DM enforcing strict rules so that his world is more "dangerous".

 

[James Gasik]

It's implied though. Because actual Teleport says that. So does Teleportation Circle. When other spells say "teleport", since that's not a defined keyword, where do you go to figure out how teleporting works? Likely, the teleport spell.

Is it lazy? Yeah but it at least indicates the presence of a rule. Because all we're left with is "teleport really doesn't mean anything and works however we think it does", which leads to debates like...uh, well, this one.

The more I discuss 5e with people, I find you kind of get three camps- those that are annoyed by the rules not being more specific. Those who apparently just grok the logic of the rules and can easily go "it says teleport, so refer to teleport" without needing text that says "see teleport", and those who are on the fence about it.

At some point, you realize you're the old man yelling at clouds and just have to shrug and go with the flow.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You mean like that teleporting takes 0 time, disappearance, transport, appearance ?

Because that is certainly not in the rules that I can see.

Nor it needs to. Because it not being so would require the telportee being nowhere and literally immune for a moment, and if that was the case it should (and I'd argue would) explicitly say so.

And again, I think the spell looks pretty cool if there is disappearance + boom, and the the caster reappears.

And for me, the game is way more about imagination of that kind than about strict rules, and is more about the players having fun and being creative than the DM enforcing strict rules so that his world is more "dangerous".

You can think that and you can run it that way in your games. Nothing wrong with that. But I'd argue that it is not how it is intended to work, as if it was the spell would be written differently. They would not hide the immunity under such tortured reading of the rules, they would just flat out say that the caster takes no damage like they do with other spells.

And whilst I like creative use of spells, IMO, just ignoring the limitations the spells may have is not creative. In fact, I feel it is quite the opposite. Working with the limitations might generate some creativity.

 

[Lyxen]

Nor it needs to. Because it not being so would require the telportee being nowhere and literally immune for a moment, and if that was the case it should (and I'd argue would) explicitly say so.

And then, other examples prove you wrong. For example, Maze does not say that the creature is "immune". Not for banishment. And yet, they are certainly "immune".

You can think that and you can run it that way in your games. Nothing wrong with that. But I'd argue that it is not how it is intended to work, as if it was the spell would be written differently.

Just as argue that if it was meant to be interpreted one way, the first sentence would have been one, extremely simple to write. But it's not the case.

They would not hide the immunity under such tortured reading of the rules, they would just flat out say that the caster takes no damage like they do with other spells.

See above.

And whilst I like creative use of spells, IMO, just ignoring the limitations the spells may have is not creative. In fact, I feel it is quite the opposite. Working with the limitations might generate some creativity.

That is an old debate, but I've never seen real creativity being bred by limiting readings of rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And then, other examples prove you wrong. For example, Maze does not say that the creature is "immune". Not for banishment. And yet, they are certainly "immune".

But they explicitly say that the character is somewhere else. Teleport spells don't. So that just strengthens my point. You have just flat out invented the teleportee being shunted to nowhere bit.

Just as argue that if it was meant to be interpreted one way, the first sentence would have been one, extremely simple to write. But it's not the case.

Considering that this thread is 30 pages long, I can't really argue that it wouldn't have been good idea to write the spell more clearly. That being said, I think the RAI is clear enough. IMO it is not a reasonable assumption that they would have buried the immunity behind convoluted interpretations and extrapolations in the manner you suggest.

 

[James Gasik]

Well we'd like to think they didn't bury any immunity. But as we've seen just with defining teleport itself, let alone "instantaneous", the rules sometimes expect you to just figure out how game elements function. Either way, having squinted and looked at the rules a certain way, I can't argue with the ruling (or perhaps, "confirmation of how Thunder Step works as written" is a better way to say it). Why anyone would bother is where I'm confused. It's just not that good of a spell! You want to teleport out of trouble? Better spell exists. You want to blast things in an area? Better spell exists?

You want to teleport 15 to 30' (no less) and blast things in an area, hoping you've been surrounded by enough enemies to be worth it, while also being more than 10' away from any allies? I guess, but how often does that actually come up?

I think when I finally can get back to gaming, I'm going to have to examine encounters and see if I can pick out times when I'd be happy to Thunder Step to see if I'm right or wrong on this.

 

[Maxperson]

Is it always though? A half second is instantaneous to you? Why didn’t WotC just say a spell casting time of “a reaction” is instantaneous?

Reactions must be faster than normal actions. There's nothing in-between normal actions and reactions but instantaneous. For a Counterspell to work, you have to first recognize that a spell is being cast, then figure out if it's close enough to be countered, then you can begin your Counterspell. If it wasn't instantaneous(half a second to cast), it would be too late to counter any spell you wanted to counter. Especially since you can counter a Counterspell, which means it has to be megafast to be able to do that.

Maybe I’m missing something, but you now seem to be arguing both sides.

Nope.

Can a reaction spell interrupt a teleport in progress since, as you claim, they are both instantaneous?

No. It can't. You can't split an instantaneous effect up. Even if you were waiting for it to happen, but the time you perceived the instant effect being done, it would be over and done with before you could begin to react with your quick action.