I need a RAW or Jeremy Crawford tweet or errata that just shows that Monks can run actually "up" a wall rather than across it like with kick flips. Not an interpretation I preferably need a Source or a Quote.
So, to kinda picture this imagine a large pit with walls either side, a monk can cross by running across the wall like Tomb Raider "moving along a vertical surface". However can they just run up a wall that was perfectly vertical from bottom to top as long as they could make it with movement?
I've got a thread on this going too. No official stuff from Crawford yet. I've tweeted at him, waiting to see if anything comes of it.
Its kind of come down to a few things:
- previous editions were clearer about being able to run "up" walls
- arguments about the semantics of what "along" means
I personally see it as the pitfall example you bring up for RAW (which is where the argument over the definition of "along" comes in), and that might have been the initial intention RAI. But rule of cool, I'd allow it, since its hardly broken anyway, and I think there is a vague sense that the creative team kind of assumes that is how it is used now.
Although, looking at the tweets that do mention monks on walls, it does seem like Crawford and the others are really careful not to indirectly rule on this. They've taken up a few questions about the mechanics of when/if a monk falls off the wall, but always avoid any mention of running along the wall horizontally or getting to run up vertically.
i would point out that the grappling one basically answers without giving an answer. Crawford doesn't raise any issue with moving an enemy up a wall through movement abilities of the monk which is part of the question that he answers. He just says that the rules that grapple applies to movement are equally applied. Which means halving your movement when moving while grappling somebody. the implication being that the part of the question that deals with going up a wall in no way violates the abilities of a monks movement.
He goes out of his way to not mention that movement himself. It could just be the monk running out over a pit and dropping them.
the question specificially states up. Not out or over something. Or people Along that people keep trying to turn horizontal only. So it can't be a matter of running them out over a pit and dropping them. Climbing is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form either to try and put that one what is said for either the question or the answer either. Which could have been an easy thing to drop in the reply if that was intended.
He goes out of his way to not mention that movement himself. It could just be the monk running out over a pit and dropping them.
the question specificially states up. Not out or over something. Or people Along that people keep trying to turn horizontal only. So it can't be a matter of running them out over a pit and dropping them. Climbing is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form either to try and put that one what is said for either the question or the answer either. Which could have been an easy thing to drop in the reply if that was intended.
But if you look at his answer, he goes out of his way to not affirm that movement as valid via the 9th level ability. He just says the grappling rules apply, not that such movement is specifically allowed to a monk without boots of spiderclimbing or something similar.
He could have just said "yes, you can do that," but he worded it specifically to not affirm that movement part directly.
While there is a difference they are, at least in my mind, both intended to be viable uses for it. I also tweeted at both Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls but I haven't had good luck getting responses from them so I'm not gonna hold my breath, lol
He goes out of his way to not mention that movement himself. It could just be the monk running out over a pit and dropping them.
the question specificially states up. Not out or over something. Or people Along that people keep trying to turn horizontal only. So it can't be a matter of running them out over a pit and dropping them. Climbing is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form either to try and put that one what is said for either the question or the answer either. Which could have been an easy thing to drop in the reply if that was intended.
But if you look at his answer, he goes out of his way to not affirm that movement as valid via the 9th level ability. He just says the grappling rules apply, not that such movement is specifically allowed to a monk without boots of spiderclimbing or something similar.
He could have just said "yes, you can do that," but he worded it specifically to not affirm that movement part directly.
His statement isn't careful to avoid it. His statement is meant to be an all inclusive answer for all forms of movement that you should be able to do under the rules. Since he doesn't rule out the specific part of moving up the wall. The base logical assumption is that such movement is valid. What he has done is say "Yes you can do something like that under all valid movement in the game you can think of on top of yes to this question." but in much shorter words. Given it's twitter you often need smaller phrasing.
He goes out of his way to not mention that movement himself. It could just be the monk running out over a pit and dropping them.
the question specificially states up. Not out or over something. Or people Along that people keep trying to turn horizontal only. So it can't be a matter of running them out over a pit and dropping them. Climbing is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form either to try and put that one what is said for either the question or the answer either. Which could have been an easy thing to drop in the reply if that was intended.
But if you look at his answer, he goes out of his way to not affirm that movement as valid via the 9th level ability. He just says the grappling rules apply, not that such movement is specifically allowed to a monk without boots of spiderclimbing or something similar.
He could have just said "yes, you can do that," but he worded it specifically to not affirm that movement part directly.
His statement isn't careful to avoid it. His statement is meant to be an all inclusive answer for all forms of movement that you should be able to do under the rules. Since he doesn't rule out the specific part of moving up the wall. The base logical assumption is that such movement is valid. What he has done is say "Yes you can do something like that under all valid movement in the game you can think of on top of yes to this question." but in much shorter words. Given it's twitter you often need smaller phrasing.
But if he doesn't state what all the valid rules are.
If the question were "can my dwarf grappled an enemy and then flew 50 ft in the air before releasing them" then his answer would still be just as true without affirming that dwarves have a natural 50ft flight speed.
His answer avoids giving any reflection upon the exact allowance of that movement under the rules.
i think the actual answer, in practice, is that RAW can be read either way, but you'd have to be kind of a stickler actively looking for ways to blunt the monk's abilities in order to read it in the "no, just horizontally, definitely not up" way. depends on how lawyerly your DM is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I need a RAW or Jeremy Crawford tweet or errata that just shows that Monks can run actually "up" a wall rather than across it like with kick flips. Not an interpretation I preferably need a Source or a Quote.
So, to kinda picture this imagine a large pit with walls either side, a monk can cross by running across the wall like Tomb Raider "moving along a vertical surface". However can they just run up a wall that was perfectly vertical from bottom to top as long as they could make it with movement?
Thanks in advance.
I've got a thread on this going too. No official stuff from Crawford yet. I've tweeted at him, waiting to see if anything comes of it.
Its kind of come down to a few things:
- previous editions were clearer about being able to run "up" walls
- arguments about the semantics of what "along" means
I personally see it as the pitfall example you bring up for RAW (which is where the argument over the definition of "along" comes in), and that might have been the initial intention RAI. But rule of cool, I'd allow it, since its hardly broken anyway, and I think there is a vague sense that the creative team kind of assumes that is how it is used now.
Although, looking at the tweets that do mention monks on walls, it does seem like Crawford and the others are really careful not to indirectly rule on this. They've taken up a few questions about the mechanics of when/if a monk falls off the wall, but always avoid any mention of running along the wall horizontally or getting to run up vertically.
Here are some examples:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/09/could-a-monk-grapple-an-enemy-and-then-move-that-enemy-up-a-wall/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/20/can-a-9th-level-monk-end-its-turn-or-movement-on-a-wall/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/07/12/what-is-the-justification-of-a-5e-monk-being-able-to-walk-along-walls/
Edit: I did just find this though, where Mike Mearls does almost just come out and say that a monk can run up walls, they just automatically fall at the end of their turn. The question he is answering was framed a bid odd though, so maybe he wasn't really answering the question of monks running vertically on walls.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/20/can-a-lv9-monk-use-unarmored-movement-to-run-non-stop-through-a-large-lake-without-falling/
Gods Bless! Thank you for the sources, let me know if you get a retweet!
i would point out that the grappling one basically answers without giving an answer. Crawford doesn't raise any issue with moving an enemy up a wall through movement abilities of the monk which is part of the question that he answers. He just says that the rules that grapple applies to movement are equally applied. Which means halving your movement when moving while grappling somebody. the implication being that the part of the question that deals with going up a wall in no way violates the abilities of a monks movement.
He goes out of his way to not mention that movement himself. It could just be the monk running out over a pit and dropping them.
the question specificially states up. Not out or over something. Or people Along that people keep trying to turn horizontal only. So it can't be a matter of running them out over a pit and dropping them. Climbing is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form either to try and put that one what is said for either the question or the answer either. Which could have been an easy thing to drop in the reply if that was intended.
But if you look at his answer, he goes out of his way to not affirm that movement as valid via the 9th level ability. He just says the grappling rules apply, not that such movement is specifically allowed to a monk without boots of spiderclimbing or something similar.
He could have just said "yes, you can do that," but he worded it specifically to not affirm that movement part directly.
As I understand it:
Running up walls (best examples towards the 2nd half): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A5E8erk_Eg
Running along walls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo8z_CyJyyc
While there is a difference they are, at least in my mind, both intended to be viable uses for it. I also tweeted at both Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls but I haven't had good luck getting responses from them so I'm not gonna hold my breath, lol
His statement isn't careful to avoid it. His statement is meant to be an all inclusive answer for all forms of movement that you should be able to do under the rules. Since he doesn't rule out the specific part of moving up the wall. The base logical assumption is that such movement is valid. What he has done is say "Yes you can do something like that under all valid movement in the game you can think of on top of yes to this question." but in much shorter words. Given it's twitter you often need smaller phrasing.
But if he doesn't state what all the valid rules are.
If the question were "can my dwarf grappled an enemy and then flew 50 ft in the air before releasing them" then his answer would still be just as true without affirming that dwarves have a natural 50ft flight speed.
His answer avoids giving any reflection upon the exact allowance of that movement under the rules.
i think the actual answer, in practice, is that RAW can be read either way, but you'd have to be kind of a stickler actively looking for ways to blunt the monk's abilities in order to read it in the "no, just horizontally, definitely not up" way. depends on how lawyerly your DM is.