When you are hit by an attack, you can use your reaction to expend 1 charge to teleport up to 10 feet to an unoccupied space you can see. If your new position is out of range of the attack, it misses you.
I more or less know how I adjudicate this in my campaign but I wanted to ask how you guys interpret the ability.
RAW it says that when you teleport as a reaction to being hit by an attack, if you teleport outside the attack range, it misses you.
So if someone stands 5ft from you and swings a sword and you teleport to a different position next to the person, you still get hit? You can potentially teleport behind the attacker and still get hit? Or is it assumed that the attacker is "choosing" your particular square to attack so if you teleport to one adjacent, it misses you?
I have no troubles imagining stuff like giant creatures attacking with longer range - like a claw or tail swipe with 10-15ft. reach in which case you teleporting away but not outside the threat area might still get you hit.
But what about an arrow shot? Realistically it goes where it goes, you can teleport 5ft. to the right/left and you should be fine but technically you are not outside the bow's range?
RAW, if your final position would be within range, then you get hit. So teleporting behind the attacker but still in 5ft. range, you get hit.
Unless there's another bit to this rule, you could teleport into the next room, out of sight, and still be hit if the range of the attack reaches (EG a longbow being fired at you), because nothing mentions line of sight of the attacker. So walk through a door, get shot at, teleport back out of sight, and still get hit because you're still in range, and that's the only requirement to still be hit.
You teleport *after* being hit. In your arrow example, the arrow teleports with you. If you teleport out of the bow's range (good luck with that...), time rewinds and you were never hit. From what I can tell, that's how this ability always works.
You teleport *after* being hit. In your arrow example, the arrow teleports with you. If you teleport out of the bow's range (good luck with that...), time rewinds and you were never hit. From what I can tell, that's how this ability always works.
That might as well be the narrative for ranged attacks. 10 feet is not likely to make a difference.
Plus being in melee is all kinds of more dangerous for a wizard.
I don't think it would because you have already been hit.
But not if you can move out of range, then the previous hit roll is treated as a miss. Moving out of the normal range should (imo) cause the normal range roll to miss and require a second d20 roll for the disadvantage and if its a hit you take damage and a miss you don't. I would also treat teleporting out of line of sight so they could not have hit you with the weapon as out of its range and treat as a miss.
By definition, a target in normal range and a target in long range are both "in range" for the purposes of being able to attack and hit the target, which is the prerequisite for the reaction to be used in the first place. The item just says if you were hit, and you teleport out of range, the hit becomes a miss. There are game features that make any provisions for going back after a successful attack and re-attempting the attack roll. Silvery Barbs is an example of this. The Atlas of Endless Horizons is not. Likewise, if someone fired an arrow at you while you were 5 feet away, they would generally do so with disadvantage. If you used the atlas to teleport 10 feet further away after they hit you, they would not go back and re-roll without disadvantage.
I'm probably spending more time on this than it deserves, but I have been re-reading the rules for range and cover. I don't see any general rule that specifically defines the phrase "out of range" as only meaning it "exceeds the long range of a ranged attack." Obviously, that would be one example of something being out of range. But a target behind total cover could also be considered out of range, since the rules for cover tell us that a target with total cover cannot be targeted directly by an attack or a spell. So I think it would be fair to say that if you blinked around a corner from the person who just fired an arrow at you, then the hit could become a miss due to being out of range in the new position.
That is a bit of an inference on my part trying to interpret the written rules, so if someone disagrees, I cannot say they are wrong to disagree. But I do think it's plausible to apply the elements of total cover toward redefining a teleported target as being out of range in the context of that feature from the atlas.
I more or less know how I adjudicate this in my campaign but I wanted to ask how you guys interpret the ability.
RAW it says that when you teleport as a reaction to being hit by an attack, if you teleport outside the attack range, it misses you.
So if someone stands 5ft from you and swings a sword and you teleport to a different position next to the person, you still get hit? You can potentially teleport behind the attacker and still get hit? Or is it assumed that the attacker is "choosing" your particular square to attack so if you teleport to one adjacent, it misses you?
I have no troubles imagining stuff like giant creatures attacking with longer range - like a claw or tail swipe with 10-15ft. reach in which case you teleporting away but not outside the threat area might still get you hit.
But what about an arrow shot? Realistically it goes where it goes, you can teleport 5ft. to the right/left and you should be fine but technically you are not outside the bow's range?
RAW, if your final position would be within range, then you get hit. So teleporting behind the attacker but still in 5ft. range, you get hit.
Unless there's another bit to this rule, you could teleport into the next room, out of sight, and still be hit if the range of the attack reaches (EG a longbow being fired at you), because nothing mentions line of sight of the attacker. So walk through a door, get shot at, teleport back out of sight, and still get hit because you're still in range, and that's the only requirement to still be hit.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
You teleport *after* being hit. In your arrow example, the arrow teleports with you. If you teleport out of the bow's range (good luck with that...), time rewinds and you were never hit. From what I can tell, that's how this ability always works.
That might as well be the narrative for ranged attacks. 10 feet is not likely to make a difference.
Plus being in melee is all kinds of more dangerous for a wizard.
If the teleport took you from weapons normal range to its long range would disadvantage apply somehow?
I don't think it would because you have already been hit.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
But not if you can move out of range, then the previous hit roll is treated as a miss. Moving out of the normal range should (imo) cause the normal range roll to miss and require a second d20 roll for the disadvantage and if its a hit you take damage and a miss you don't. I would also treat teleporting out of line of sight so they could not have hit you with the weapon as out of its range and treat as a miss.
By definition, a target in normal range and a target in long range are both "in range" for the purposes of being able to attack and hit the target, which is the prerequisite for the reaction to be used in the first place. The item just says if you were hit, and you teleport out of range, the hit becomes a miss. There are game features that make any provisions for going back after a successful attack and re-attempting the attack roll. Silvery Barbs is an example of this. The Atlas of Endless Horizons is not. Likewise, if someone fired an arrow at you while you were 5 feet away, they would generally do so with disadvantage. If you used the atlas to teleport 10 feet further away after they hit you, they would not go back and re-roll without disadvantage.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm probably spending more time on this than it deserves, but I have been re-reading the rules for range and cover. I don't see any general rule that specifically defines the phrase "out of range" as only meaning it "exceeds the long range of a ranged attack." Obviously, that would be one example of something being out of range. But a target behind total cover could also be considered out of range, since the rules for cover tell us that a target with total cover cannot be targeted directly by an attack or a spell. So I think it would be fair to say that if you blinked around a corner from the person who just fired an arrow at you, then the hit could become a miss due to being out of range in the new position.
That is a bit of an inference on my part trying to interpret the written rules, so if someone disagrees, I cannot say they are wrong to disagree. But I do think it's plausible to apply the elements of total cover toward redefining a teleported target as being out of range in the context of that feature from the atlas.
"Not all those who wander are lost"