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

[Irlo]

If you can Counterspell a Counterspell, Counterspell must be faster than itself. That’s where we end up with deep analysis of DND rules.

 

[Lyxen]

Reactions must be faster than normal actions.

Why ? Is this a personal feeling, or is it RAW ? And if it's RAW, where is it said ?

There's nothing in-between normal actions and reactions but instantaneous.

So now, instantaneous is between normal actions and reactions ? I'm lost.

Just in general, I don't think that there is any rule about this, nor does there need to be.

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.

And doing that to counterspell a shield being cast on an instantaneous magic missile, how do you explain it ?

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.

It has to be, and even worse, you can counterspell as many times as there are combattants with the spell and an available reaction. It just goes to prove that there is no fixed duration, just "whatever time is needed for narration to make it sound cool".

No. It can't. You can't split an instantaneous effect up.

You keep repeating that, but Thunder Step is a clear counter-example. There is at least the teleport (maybe even in two parts) and the boom.

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.

Again, just your personal feelings, the RAW saying nothing of the kind, ever.

 

[Maxperson]

Why ? Is this a personal feeling, or is it RAW ? And if it's RAW, where is it said ?

You need to put less emphasis on what is exactly written and look at context and use. Context seems to be a weak point of yours. There's a 0% chance that a reaction is as slow or slower than normal actions.

So now, instantaneous is between normal actions and reactions ?

By the time you can perceive something that happens in an instant, it's too late to react. So speed must be normal > reaction > instantaneous. This is backed up by the opportunity attack, which is explicitly fast enough to interrupt the trigger, not being fast enough to interrupt a teleporter leaving a space within reach.

And doing that to counterspell a shield being cast on an instantaneous magic missile, how do you explain it ?

Specific beats general. There is no such specificity in Ready Action.

It has to be, and even worse, you can counterspell as many times as there are combattants with the spell and an available reaction. It just goes to prove that there is no fixed duration, just "whatever time is needed for narration to make it sound cool".

No. One does not equal the other. Duration doesn't have to be, "whatever time is needed for narration to make it sound cool" in order for Counterspell to work in a chain like that.

You keep repeating that, but Thunder Step is a clear counter-example. There is at least the teleport (maybe even in two parts) and the boom.

Nothing is split. The thunder happens after the disappearance, but nothing says it happens before reappearance.

 

[Lyxen]

You need to put less emphasis on what is exactly written and look at context and use. Context seems to be a weak point of yours. There's a 0% chance that a reaction is as slow or slower than normal actions.

That's what I thought, only your personal feelings, not a smidge of RAW support.

As for me, there will be actions shorter than some reactions. For example, drawing a second weapon is going to be shorter than making an attack as a readied action.

Wisely, the RAW don't create arbitrary constraints like this. You are free to do whatever you want in your game, but please don't try to pretend that these are anything but your own preconceptions.

By the time you can perceive something that happens in an instant, it's too late to react.

Again, just your personal views, this is not what happens in genre fiction. If you want to restrict yourself, fine, but once more, not a whiff of RAW support.

So speed must be normal > reaction > instantaneous. This is backed up by the opportunity attack, which is explicitly fast enough to interrupt the trigger, not being fast enough to interrupt a teleporter leaving a space within reach.

Once more, you are reading the OA wrong. It's not a question of the means used, for example you cannot interrupt spells, so there is no reason for which a teleport would be interrupted. And it's not a question of position, since you can disengage and make the exact same move. OA are about moving from being "engaged" to "away" without any precaution like disengaging.

Specific beats general. There is no such specificity in Ready Action.

Do I need to remind you that you were speaking about Counterspell ? sigh

No. One does not equal the other. Duration doesn't have to be, "whatever time is needed for narration to make it sound cool" in order for Counterspell to work in a chain like that.

The fact that one can insert as many reactions inside whatever period of time you want to define just shows that there is no such thing as fixed periods of time. They don't exist in the rules, any constraint that you fix is uniquely your own.

Nothing is split. The thunder happens after the disappearance, but nothing says it happens before reappearance.

This is not what I'm saying. Thunder Step is just a proof that your statement of "You can't split an instantaneous effect up" is contrary to the RAW. THe spell is instantaneous but contains AT LEAST two (and possibly) three effects, distinct and in sequence. This proves that the instantaneous effect of the spell can be split up (and as a reminder, the RAW is very clear, each spell has ONE effect whic is the whole description, with very few exceptions like Guards and Wards, I have provided the citation many times now).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I agree that some rules could be written more clearly. But I am very serious that I believe it is better to err on the side of too few rules instead of too much rules.
The Idea of having fool proof rules is wishful thinking at best.
If it is just a word here and there, I am on your side, but if the cure is worse than the sickness, I accept to live with the sickness.
Edit: I quoted the wrong post of yours. Sorry.

 

[Maxperson]

That's what I thought, only your personal feelings, not a smidge of RAW support.

If by none, you mean some, you would be correct. RAW provides the context that shows that there is no chance of reactions being as slow or slower than normal actions. That is RAW support, even if it's indirect.

As for me, there will be actions shorter than some reactions. For example, drawing a second weapon is going to be shorter than making an attack as a readied action.

Drawing a weapon is free as part of the attack.

Once more, you are reading the OA wrong. It's not a question of the means used, for example you cannot interrupt spells, so there is no reason for which a teleport would be interrupted. And it's not a question of position, since you can disengage and make the exact same move. OA are about moving from being "engaged" to "away" without any precaution like disengaging.

No. The OA is purely about interrupting those leaving reach. It makes an exception for teleport. Why? BECAUSE TELEPORT IS FREAKING FAST. Too fast to interrupt and hit the guy leaving.

This is not what I'm saying. Thunder Step is just a proof that your statement of "You can't split an instantaneous effect up" is contrary to the RAW. THe spell is instantaneous but contains AT LEAST two (and possibly) three effects, distinct and in sequence. This proves that the instantaneous effect of the spell can be split up (and as a reminder, the RAW is very clear, each spell has ONE effect whic is the whole description, with very few exceptions like Guards and Wards, I have provided the citation many times now).

No. The reason it says after you disappear as that it has to tell you when the thunder happens. The choices are 1) Before you disappear, and 2) after you disappear. Clearly it wouldn't make sense to make it before, so they went with after. After does not mean that it interrupts the teleport itself. That's your assumption and that assumption is incorrect based on the context of a myriad of examples and other rules.

 

[Lyxen]

If by none, you mean some, you would be correct. RAW provides the context that shows that there is no chance of reactions being as slow or slower than normal actions. That is RAW support, even if it's indirect.

And once more, zero proof, direct or even indirect. Which is a good thing considering the direct proof of the contrary that I have given you.

Drawing a weapon is free as part of the attack.

Wrong, on both counts. First, it's not part of any attack in 5e, it just a free interaction with an object and not linked to an attack. Second, I said, on purpose because I know that rule, a SECOND weapon (for two-weapon fighting for example).

No. The OA is purely about interrupting those leaving reach. It makes an exception for teleport. Why? BECAUSE TELEPORT IS FREAKING FAST. Too fast to interrupt and hit the guy leaving.

And it makes an exception for people withdrawing, is that because they are freaking fast too ? It's ridiculous, by the way, Teleport is not fast, it just does not cross the intervening space.

No. The reason it says after you disappear as that it has to tell you when the thunder happens.

It is still ONE instantaneous spell being split. Honestly, every single time you try to tell that things are RAW< you get them wrong, it's happened on every single topic in this post.

 

[Maxperson]

And once more, zero proof, direct or even indirect. Which is a good thing considering the direct proof of the contrary that I have given you.

You've given none. Not one shred of evidence of any kind that says reactions are slower than regular action. C'mon man.

Wrong, on both counts. First, it's not part of any attack in 5e, it just a free interaction with an object and not linked to an attack. Second, I said, on purpose because I know that rule, a SECOND weapon (for two-weapon fighting for example).

Care to try again?

"You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack."

And it makes an exception for people withdrawing, is that because they are freaking fast too ? It's ridiculous, by the way, Teleport is not fast, it just does not cross the intervening space.

No. That's because they are taking care not to be attacked. That you argue that teleport is not fast is...............................something else.

It is still ONE instantaneous spell being split. Honestly, every single time you try to tell that things are RAW< you get them wrong, it's happened on every single topic in this post.

It's not being split at all. It's just telling you when the thunder happens. Nothing there indicates that it happens before reappearance. It just has to happen after disappearance, because if it happened before, the caster would always be hit.

 

[Lyxen]

You've given none. Not one shred of evidence of any kind that says reactions are slower than regular action. C'mon man.

I have given you the example of drawing a second weapon. Simple.

Care to try again?

"You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack."

It's just an example, it does not have to be part of an attack. It's for free, during the move and the action: "the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action: draw or sheathe a weapon."

Nethertheless, a second interaction (drawing another weapon) takes your full action. So basically, drawing two weapons including one for free takes your full action.

No. That's because they are taking care not to be attacked. That you argue that teleport is not fast is...............................something else.

This is amusing, once more, the reason is not that teleport is fast or not, is that you don't open yourself to be attacked, since you don't move away. Teleport is not that fast, it takes a full action to cast anyway.

It's not being split at all.

You don't have an instantaneous spell SPLIT into a teleport and a boom then, happening in sequence ?

 

[Baron Opal II]

You two have been arguing this, with pedantry and sophistry, for over a week?