Oh I absolutely loath "willing" triggers, at least for non-mental effects. Its fine that Frightened examines whether a creature is willingly moving closer or being drug closer against its will... but Booming Blade? They seem to have tacked that on there not for an in-game reason, but rather to shut down synergy with forced movement effects for (misguided) balance concerns. Too complicated!
Booming Blade is talking about categories 1, 2, or 3, so long as they're "willing"
Conditions like Frightened.... same thing, 1, 2, or 3 that's "willing" is prohibited.
Similar, other spells like Spike Growth just talk about "moves", not even caring if its willing. Categories 1, 2, or 3.
Opportunity Attack starts off talking about categories 1, 2, or 3, but then specifies that teleportation and #3 don't actually trigger OAs. Its various enhancements like PAM or Sentinel don't change that.
Spells like Hallow would stop you from entering using 1, 2, or 3.
I kinda think the "willing" thing is more trouble than it's worth in some cases. If something is triggered by moving, it should be triggered by moving, and if you can combo it with thorn whip or whatever, so be it.
I mean, it's not hard to come up with edge cases that make the difference between "willing" and "unwilling" kind of nonsense. For instance:
You're standing on the edge of a cliff (like, the cliff's edge is within the same square on the map as you). Someone hits you with booming blade. If you get shoved off the edge and plummet a hundred feet, the spell doesn't go off? But then if you jump off the edge, it does? What's the difference, really? Why is the jump the only thing that makes the secondary damage go off, and not the push or the plummet?
Careful. Keep this up and you'll ask why Opportunity Attacks turn people into telepaths, since only hostile creatures provoke them.
I will just point out that asking a person to clarify their non-logical and non-rules-consistent view on what it means for something to “use movement” without that thing actually “using movement” does not make the person ASKING the question the confused one.
Asking the guy claiming “it uses movement” “how much movement does it use, then?” is a legitimate clarification question.
I've mentioned before that I think that the mega-category of "movement" consists of:
"Your move/Your movement": the movement you undertake up to your speed value during your turn, which Chapter 9 calls "your move" and "your movement."
Actions Granting Movement: the Actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions that you might take that move you (sometimes referencing speed, sometimes referencing a flat value)
Other Movement: anything that moves you without "your move" or your action (e.g. pushing, falling, riding a mount, etc.).
The problem with taking about these sub-categories is, that other poll thread is a perfect demonstration why a lot of readers don't care that much about whether the feature they're reading refers to the mega-category, or to one or more of the sub-categories. Booming Blade talks about a creature that "moves," and yet all sorts of respondents seem to think that only category 1 triggers it and not 2 or 3, despite "your move" or "your movement" not showing up in the spell description.
I mean, we're closer to agreement than disagreeing entirely. I see those same 3 categories, generally speaking, with just minor modifications. Category 2 doesn't, in my estimation, include the "sometimes referencing a flat value" stuff, those go into category 3 (unless it says it costs movement, handful of those out there). And, that category 3 shouldn't ever be called movement for clarity sake.
My takes on where the differences lie:
Booming Blade is talking about categories 1, 2, or 3, so long as they're "willing"
Conditions like Frightened.... same thing, 1, 2, or 3 that's "willing" is prohibited.
Similar, other spells like Spike Growth just talk about "moves", not even caring if its willing. Categories 1, 2, or 3.
Opportunity Attack starts off talking about categories 1, 2, or 3, but then specifies that teleportation and #3 don't actually trigger OAs. Its various enhancements like PAM or Sentinel don't change that.
Spells like Hallow would stop you from entering using 1, 2, or 3.
Yeah, I'm right there with you. OAs make it clear right out the gate they're only 1 + 2. But, sure.
Noticing a trend? Anything that says "moves" or "movement" is.... talking about all three types of super-category movement.
Well, lost me again. Anything that says "moves" is all three. Sure. But, anything that says Movement, or Speed for that matter, is categories 1 + 2. Your linked examples right up there don't use the word "movement" at all. Booming Blade, Frightened, Spike Growth, Hallow. "Movement" doesn't appear in those texts.
Anything that says something like "your movement on your turn" or "the creature's movement on its turn" could be just talking about #1, or could again be referencing the super category of 1-3, I'd probably assume the same 1-3.
It probably means category 1. It technically could include category 2 depending how it is worded overall. But for sure doesn't mean category 3.
Because.... it just really doesn't seem like 5E is interested in distinguishing much between effects triggering on 1, 2, or 3, other than to the extent that OA has a specific described exemption for #3.
It does differentiate between 1/2 vs 3 strongly. 1+2 both use a movement speed/type and 3 doesn't. That is a huge distinction. Anything that impacts your speed or available movement type options directly impacts 1/2 categories but not category 3. Being slowed changes the amount you can move in category 1/2 but not 3. Getting hit by ray of frost changes the distance you move with 1/2 but not 3.
Being forcibly moved(3) is distinct from your movement(1/2) in that being forcibly moved has absolutely nothing to do with your available movement type or movement speed... ie, nothing to do with your movement.
Reeeeally wish that 5E had called #1 "your move" something specific and game-y like "Maneuvering" or "Advancing" so as to distinguish it from the general metaphysical concept of "movement," but here we are.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Rules are Rules. The text in the book, is the text in the book.
Muddling the game terms of Move and Movement causes a number of bizarre inconsistencies. It has very little real impact when outside a heavily game mechanics based environment. If your game is in a current phase where you're tracking by minutes... hours... days, the distinction is nearly meaningless, most of the time. It really only matters in the mechanics heavy environment of turn based tracking and especially combat, where game terms are concrete and their interacts specified in a mechanical way. If you just want to describe your "character's movements" in the sense that they're waving their arms around, that has no more difference than if you're describing your character's moving their arms around. Those are both colloquial uses and people are free to describe things however they want to.
The issue at hand is when discussing rules specifically, if you start swapping game terms around all willy-nilly it eventually leads to a misconstrued ruling.
There was an example of it earlier in this very thread when someone got confused about if using an ability that allows you to move up to half your speed would somehow use up the normal movement on your own turn. Or someone swearing up and down that when you've been moved by an ally with bait and switch that you somehow are using movement... which, if true, means they can't do so if their speed was 0.
If your speed is 0 does that then mean you cannot be moved by any means whatsoever? Since your speed is 0 you have no movement to be moved with. Or what if someone or something moves you, but, on your turn? Does that "movement" use up your turn's movement?
If you push someone who is swimming and they don't have a swim speed, are they moved only half the distance? What about over difficult terrain? "Each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot" is applied to that forced movement right? So pushing someone 10ft over difficult terrain only moves them 5 ft?
If teleporting was movement, for example, getting slowed would reduce the distance you could teleport. If getting moved by an effect, say a pulling effect, was movement, then if you had been hit with ray of frost you'd get pulled 10ft less.
No one actually plays this way, and the game isn't meant to be played that way. Because none of those things "are movement". You can call them movement in a colloquial sense, but they're not movement in a game mechanics sense.
If Moving=Movement... Anything that interacts with your speed would then interact with moving. Because spending Movement and spending Speed are used interchangeably. Even when it would lead to results not intended by the actual design of the ability. General example: slows would now prevent forced "movement". The actual number of ways it leads to odd or erroneous rulings is too immense to parse, even for someone like me. You'd need to comb through all possible abilities and effects from all books specifically looking for odd interactions as a result of having swapped game term definitions around. Even at just 'all forced movements interacting with things that modify speed or costs extra movement' it is already game breaking.
So, after a week of insistent arguing, you can't actually name a single situation where the distinction is meaningfully useful? I don't think anyone in the "teleportation is moving thus movement" camp was of the opinion that something that increases, decreases or eliminates your movement or speed will have any effect on a teleportation effect. So again, just checking if there is any rule significance to this discussion at all?
Careful. Keep this up and you'll ask why Opportunity Attacks turn people into telepaths, since only hostile creatures provoke them.
Nah. If there's a situation where the player somehow isn't sure whether a creature is hostile or not, that's just an opportunity for role play
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Rules are Rules. The text in the book, is the text in the book.
Muddling the game terms of Move and Movement causes a number of bizarre inconsistencies. It has very little real impact when outside a heavily game mechanics based environment. If your game is in a current phase where you're tracking by minutes... hours... days, the distinction is nearly meaningless, most of the time. It really only matters in the mechanics heavy environment of turn based tracking and especially combat, where game terms are concrete and their interacts specified in a mechanical way. If you just want to describe your "character's movements" in the sense that they're waving their arms around, that has no more difference than if you're describing your character's moving their arms around. Those are both colloquial uses and people are free to describe things however they want to.
The issue at hand is when discussing rules specifically, if you start swapping game terms around all willy-nilly it eventually leads to a misconstrued ruling.
There was an example of it earlier in this very thread when someone got confused about if using an ability that allows you to move up to half your speed would somehow use up the normal movement on your own turn. Or someone swearing up and down that when you've been moved by an ally with bait and switch that you somehow are using movement... which, if true, means they can't do so if their speed was 0.
If your speed is 0 does that then mean you cannot be moved by any means whatsoever? Since your speed is 0 you have no movement to be moved with. Or what if someone or something moves you, but, on your turn? Does that "movement" use up your turn's movement?
If you push someone who is swimming and they don't have a swim speed, are they moved only half the distance? What about over difficult terrain? "Each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot" is applied to that forced movement right? So pushing someone 10ft over difficult terrain only moves them 5 ft?
If teleporting was movement, for example, getting slowed would reduce the distance you could teleport. If getting moved by an effect, say a pulling effect, was movement, then if you had been hit with ray of frost you'd get pulled 10ft less.
No one actually plays this way, and the game isn't meant to be played that way. Because none of those things "are movement". You can call them movement in a colloquial sense, but they're not movement in a game mechanics sense.
If Moving=Movement... Anything that interacts with your speed would then interact with moving. Because spending Movement and spending Speed are used interchangeably. Even when it would lead to results not intended by the actual design of the ability. General example: slows would now prevent forced "movement". The actual number of ways it leads to odd or erroneous rulings is too immense to parse, even for someone like me. You'd need to comb through all possible abilities and effects from all books specifically looking for odd interactions as a result of having swapped game term definitions around. Even at just 'all forced movements interacting with things that modify speed or costs extra movement' it is already game breaking.
So, after a week of insistent arguing, you can't actually name a single situation where the distinction is meaningfully useful?
What? I just listed a bunch. Even actual examples from earlier in this thread.
I don't think anyone in the "teleportation is moving thus movement" camp was of the opinion that something that increases, decreases or eliminates your movement or speed will have any effect on a teleportation effect.
And of forced "movement"?
So again, just checking if there is any rule significance to this discussion at all?
If you're saying that everyone is just calling it movement while not actually treating it like movement... then, okay. You can use whatever words you want. Make up whatever cipher you like. But by RAW: forcing a creature to move... is not their movement. Mechanically. Game rules wise. That's the only thing I've ever been arguing regarding moving vs movement. You can call "moving" instead "hello kittie fun island adventure time" if you want. But, in 5 e terms the mechanics work the way they are written to work. Forcing someone to move isn't "movement" on their part. And any effects that interact with their movement don't meaningfully interact with that forced move.
So if you're saying you don't treat forced moves like movement, mechanically, but just really enjoy the thought of calling them "movement" for kicks? Carry on brother, you do you.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To X while Y, you must A or B such as C. This sentence structure at no point says that all B is X, nor that all C is X.
Example: To heal while under chill touch effect, you must wait until the effect expires or use magic such as dispel magic.
Is using dispel magic... healing?
People are gleaming something from this phrase that isn't there.
Well, your example statement allows characters to heal when under the effect of the Chill Touch spell by either waiting for it to wear off or using Dispel Magic. This is obviously nonsense, as neither of your options would allow you to heal while under the effect of the spell.
Sure sure. Your example is better.
As you say, it does not mean that either of the options become X. However both options are ways to qualify X, which is essentially the same as saying that teleportation/healing can cause "move while prone"/"regain HP while at 0 HP". As for the "such as teleportation/healing" statement, it functions as a clear, rules-defined example of what works, and that similar effects (DM defined) work as well.
Right. And, if you spend 5 ft of movement to Transport Via Plants you have moved while prone via teleportation. But teleportation, more broadly, isn't done on your move.
The rules written in the various chapters of the source books are general rules. Some are optional and listed as such. Specific rules can be found described in the specific spells, class features, feats etc. Sometimes, specific exceptions to the rules will be given as examples in the general rules, but will be explicitly described as such. It is one thing to interpret the general rule of "To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation" to somehow be a specific rule; it is another to take the specific example in that rule (teleportation as a category) and say that only applies to a specific spell in said category. The rules said "teleportation", not Transport via Plants.
As for whether or not teleportation counts as moving, how do you interpret the feature below? To me, this is another instance where the rules describe that teleportation counts as moving. How do you interpret it?
Grasping Arrow
When this arrow strikes its target, conjuration magic creates grasping, poisonous brambles, which wrap around the target. The creature hit by the arrow takes an extra 2d6 poison damage, its speed is reduced by 10 feet, and it takes 2d6 slashing damage the first time on each turn it moves 1 foot or more without teleporting.
I don't infer things this way. I firmly believe that if the game treated teleportation as movement it would just straight up say so. Since it doesn't, the most you can gather from a phrase like that is that 'a type of teleport effect, might, somewhere, someday, be a move, and, if used in this situation, doesn't count as moving for the purposes of this spell'.
Although, I'm gradually changing my take on this type of teleport reference. Some people seem almost eager to misunderstand it as a move, or even as movement. For something that never once shows up in the rules, not a single time... a few people really are voraciously defending the incorrect notion that "teleportation is movement". I mean, not...once is it ever said in the rules. Yet here we are, with many people swearing up and down that's how it works "for reasons" yet, never once appearing in the text of the rules that "teleportation is movement". Clearly, people are primed for this type of misunderstanding for some reason.
I suspect that is because teleportation doesn't really exist. It is something fundamentally foreign to our experience, and our reality. Common Sense can't guide your intuition on it because you very literally don't have experience with it. Nothing you've ever known in your life behaves the way teleportation would. So, naturally, it is just something people are going to need extra clarity on. Essentially, because it's not real and none of us have a shared experience of what it is or how it works...It could behave any number of ways, so the authors need to be very clear how they envision it to work.
So, I can see that side of things too. When writing abilities you must also take your audience's perception into account. If you're at all worried that people don't know the difference between teleporting and moving, then, toss that in there to be extra clear and not have any misunderstanding.
Justifying your interpretation by arguing what you believe the authors must have thought when they wrote the general rules is a poor way of arguing from a purely RAW perspective in my opinion.
Tacking on "without teleporting" makes it super clear to the person using the ability that teleportation doesn't count as moving for triggering this effect. Even if they would have been primed to think otherwise, now it is clear. Teleporting isn't moving (for sure not for this effect).
The only thing that is clear from that spell's specific rules is that the spell's effect isn't triggered by moving using teleportation. That does not at all translate to "Teleporting isn't moving". It translate to the opposite. If a specific rule says something isn't the case in that specific context, then it is implied that the opposite is true outside that specific context.
Questions for the Teleportation is Move(ment) crowd(s):
If you misty step 20ft immediately before long jumping, without any walking movement getting used whatsoever, do you consider that as satisfying the requirement to move 10ft before the jump? Why or why not?
Keeping your answer in mind... now, what if you're in the area of Spike Growth and teleport to another area within that same Spike Growth but 30ft away? How much damage are you taking?
Obviously misty stepping before a long jump doesn't count as moving 10 ft. The whole purpose of the requirement is to demonstrate the character has built up speed and momentum. Teleportation doesn't do that. So teleporting isn't moving.
If you think teleporting is moving, then... "while within the area" ... they ... "moved 30 ft". That's 12d4 damage? Does this actually make any sense though? They never went through those spaces... seems like one of those instances where misapplying the definition of movement to teleportation has derived nonsensical results.
fdghfh
The requirement is not satisfied for 2 reasons: (1) teleporting doesn't count as "move ... on foot"; (2) Teleporting isn't a "straight line", it is visually a "broken line" as it doesn't go through the spaces between the point you left and the one you entered.
You take 2d4 damage as you enter the area. You have not moved while within the area. You moved in whatever space/plane you deem teleportation magic to use in your world, if you decide they don't simply cease to exist to then exist again.
Outside the context of Your Move, movement is also understood to mean: (1) moving unwillingly outside your turn (e.g. Dissonant Whispers);
Why are you calling that movement? That is moving. It uses movement, just as your move uses movement. But, why call it specifically movement, when it instead is moving. The terms used in the spell says, and I quote "to move as far as its speed allows away from you" and never once uses the word movement.
Because it causes you to move as far as your speed allows, you are using a type of movement. One can even make an argument that they need to use the type of movement that has the highest speed, too, at least after they've exhausted the others. Because if you walk 30 ft and have a 60ft fly speed, you still have speed left, and that speed "would allow" you to move farther.
But the term "movement" here is applicable in only exactly the same way as it is during You Move on your turn, Movement Type and Movement Spent. What you're doing is movingwhile using any available movement to accomplish it.
You're asking me (1) why I call it movement; (2) you state it is moving; (3) you state it uses movement; (4) you state the spell uses the word "move" and never once use the word "movement"; (5) you state that it uses a type of movement. From what I can tell you believe this is not movement but moving, yes? Despite the use of movement and the reference to speed? Didn't you earlier say that referencing speed made the move synonymous with movement?
I'm having a hard time keeping track of how you define movement vs moving so I'll address the different assumptions I believe you might hold based on your comment above: 1. If you are assuming that something is only considered movement when (1) you move on "Your Move" during your turn while (2) spending movement, moving with the [action]Ready[/spell] action would not be considered movement. 2. If you are assuming that something is only considered movement when (1) you move on "Your Move" during your turn while (2) spending movement, OR the word "movement" is used, then Relentless Avenger is movement, but Dissonant Whispers is not.
Which of the two assumptions are you making if any?
Relentless Avenger By 7th level, your supernatural focus helps you close off a foe’s retreat. When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you can move up to half your speed immediately after the attack and as part of the same reaction. This movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
Oddly, though... Dissonant Whispers and Skirmisher have nearly identical triggers, both being reactions probably not on your own turn. Why did you separate them into different categories?
Dissonant Whispers causes unwilling movement, whereas movement from the Skirmisher feature is willing.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the game's mechanics (rules) are created to support the narrative, not vice versa. If it does the opposite (create a logical gap in the narrative), it defeats the purpose of the rules. If one considers teleportation to not be movement and not count as entering an area, an example of a logical gap in the narrative could be having to explain how the teleporting wizard is not affected by all the whirling, razor-sharp blades made by Blade Barrier that he is now standing in the middle of (or being completely unscathed by the Whirlwind he is casually strolling through).
2 things. I wanted to avoid "enter' debate entirely but I'll touch on it briefly to state this: Your argument here has nothing to do with the word movement.
This is what it looks like without mentioning movement at all:
If one considers teleportation to not count as entering an area, an example of a logical gap in the narrative could be having to explain how the teleporting wizard is not affected by all the whirling, razor-sharp blades made by Blade Barrier that he is now standing in the middle of (or being completely unscathed by the Whirlwind he is casually strolling through).
You see? You're slipping in an irrelevant point to your argument.
Movement has nothing to do with what you're saying there.
But, as an aside, that 2nd thing: There is no logical gap in that example any more than there is when you're standing in that spell area after it first got cast and just casually not taking damage then either. Is it also a logical gap that casting moonbeam ontop of someone doesn't immediately do damage to them right away? But casting it ontop of someone and then shoving their buddy into the area would trigger it on their buddy. is that also a logical gap? If so, your problem with logical gaps is the rules themselves and you should be looking at homebrewing things.
My argument had to do with the teleportation and "entering" discussion, not the "movement" discussion. The logical gap exists when you argue that the teleporting wizard can sit down and have a picnic in the middle of the Whirlwind without having to do anything to try and keep his hat on his head, when anyone not teleporting would be affected by the spell. The effects of Moonbeam and similar spells do create a slight gap in the logic of the narrative as you mention, but not at all to the same degree a with Whirlwind. As I said, the game mechanics are created to support the narrative, and if it did the opposite to the degree that Whirlwind would under you interpretation of RAW, then it would most likely be considered a game flaw to be errata'ed.
*This thread is meant as a sum-up of an off-topic discussion in another thread. State your own conclusions if you like*
Personally, I believe teleportation is considered a type of movement and that it causes the teleporting creature to enter the area teleported into (thus not bypassing spell effects of spells like Whirlwind). To make the assertion, 2 topics need to be briefly addressed:
1: What does the game consider as movement?
2: When does a creature enter an area?
What does the game consider as movement? There are 3 things (at least) to keep track of when discussing movement in D&D 5e: your move, movement, and speed. I make the distinction between Your Move and Movement to make referencing either easier in case the discussion gets muddled).
Your Move: Throughout the PHB, "your move" is referred to as a specific type of phase (for lack of better word), just like an action, bonus action, reaction are all separate entities. While it might be difficult to think of them as phases due to the lack of set sequence, they are still parts that can make up a whole turn (despite the mutability of said turn). During this phase on your turn you spend movement up to your speed to move around.
Movement: Movement is a general term that describes different types of movement. There is no one definition in the rules that describe how this word is to be understood in all contexts, and it is used in a variety of contexts throughout the rules (when a game term isn't clearly defined, the common English understanding applies in the given context). In the context of Your Move, movement is most often referred to as a consumable resource used to actively move your character around during your turn. Some effects can cause you to spend Your Move to move unwillingly (e.g. Possession/Command/Compulsion). Outside the context of Your Move, movement is also understood to mean: (1) moving unwillingly outside your turn (e.g. Dissonant Whispers); (2) moving willingly using your action/bonus action/reaction (e.g. Teleport/Plane Shift/features such as Skirmisher (Scout Rogue)); or (3) being forcefully moved (e.g. Thunderwave/Scatter/falling).
Speed: A character's speed is the total amount of movement a character can normally spend on its turn. Features, spells, and other effects can alter your speed or grant you movement exceeding the limit set by your speed. Common examples include the Longstrider spell or the Dash action. The word "speed" is also used to describe the different types of movement speeds, such as climbing, flying, burrowing etc.
The rules seem to regard all of the different types of movement I listed in the Movement section as types of movement, no matter whether or not they were willing, unwilling, or forced. Regarding teleportation, the rules seem to consider it a form of movement, which is explicitly stated in the following rules statement in the Movement and Positioning section of PHB: "To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation".
When does a creature enter an area? The rules don't define the word "enter", so the common English understanding applies. As such, a creature seems to be entering an area when the creature changes its position from a point outside the area to a point inside the area. The how or why doesn't seem to matter. Furthermore, spells such as Whirlwind make it clear that it matters who moves when the game asks for someone to be "entering". The spell Magic Circle likewise makes it clear that teleportation can cause a creature to enter an area.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the game's mechanics (rules) are created to support the narrative, not vice versa. If it does the opposite (create a logical gap in the narrative), it defeats the purpose of the rules. If one considers teleportation to not be movement and not count as entering an area, an example of a logical gap in the narrative could be having to explain how the teleporting wizard is not affected by all the whirling, razor-sharp blades made by Blade Barrier that he is now standing in the middle of (or being completely unscathed by the Whirlwind he is casually strolling through).
Nicely set out.
I would point out some other data for you to consider:
There is a further distinction between "movement" and "Movement type". Teleport is not considered a movement type (try filtering the Monster list by Movement Type for example). No Monsters (or PCs) have "teleport" as a movement type (unlike in some previous editions), and there's a really good mechanical reason for that. In 5e they changed it so anyone can break up their move and perform some other action in the middle. If you could do that with a Teleport speed, that would be simply too powerful.
Teleport abilities exclusively take an action or bonus action to perform.
That said, I don't think that this detracts from your main points : If you Teleport into an area, you have entered it. If you teleport somewhere you have "moved" there, even if you didn't use "Your Move" to do so.
( Interestingly, the wording on Opportunity Attack suggests that Teleport does count as "moving out of reach", since it calls out teleport as one way to specifically avoid the opportunity attack. If teleport wasn't "moving out of reach" then it wouldn't need to be called out as a specific exception. At least -- that's one way to interpret that passage. )
Addressing the examples of creatures taking damage moving through a zone by teleporting, I think the most reasonable interpretation is to consider the creature to have "entered" the destination square only, since no intervening squares were moved through. So if you start inside the area, take damage for starting your turn there, and then teleport to another square inside the area, you've now entered the area again. (I'm a bit hazy on the ruling for entering and exiting and then re-entering a damaging zone -- it might be that you can only take that damage once per turn..)
After considering this, I think I'm now able to answer the booming blade poll more confidently.
Thank you :)
I should have worded it another way than "types of movement" as that can easily be confused with movement types (flying, burrowing etc.). That is not what I meant. I was referring to different forms of movement such as willing movement, unwilling movement, forced movement.
I don't remember saying that teleporting wasn't exclusively using your action and bonus actions (it's getting late), but an example of teleporting as a reaction is the Misty Step feature of Archfey patron Warlock. Moving through a portal, such as one created by Arcane Gate likewise doesn't use you action or bonus action.
Right. And, if you spend 5 ft of movement to Transport Via Plants you have moved while prone via teleportation. But teleportation, more broadly, isn't done on your move.
The rules written in the various chapters of the source books are general rules. Some are optional and listed as such. Specific rules can be found described in the specific spells, class features, feats etc. Sometimes, specific exceptions to the rules will be given as examples in the general rules, but will be explicitly described as such. It is one thing to interpret the general rule of "To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation" to somehow be a specific rule; it is another to take the specific example in that rule (teleportation as a category) and say that only applies to a specific spell in said category. The rules said "teleportation", not Transport via Plants.
Teleportation, more broadly, isn't done on your move. That's a fact lol.
As for whether or not teleportation counts as moving, how do you interpret the feature below? To me, this is another instance where the rules describe that teleportation counts as moving. How do you interpret it?
Grasping Arrow
....the first time on each turn it moves 1 foot or more without teleporting.
I don't infer things this way. I firmly believe that if the game treated teleportation as movement it would just straight up say so. Since it doesn't, the most you can gather from a phrase like that is that 'a type of teleport effect, might, somewhere, someday, be a move, and, if used in this situation, doesn't count as moving for the purposes of this spell'.
...
So, I can see that side of things too. When writing abilities you must also take your audience's perception into account. If you're at all worried that people don't know the difference between teleporting and moving, then, toss that in there to be extra clear and not have any misunderstanding.
Justifying your interpretation by arguing what you believe the authors must have thought when they wrote the general rules is a poor way of arguing from a purely RAW perspective in my opinion.
I was asked how I interpret something. I answered how I interpret it. If the authors want a rule in the game, they'll write it. You won't have to infer something not written in black and white. If teleportation was a type of movement, the rest of any of the books would just say that. They don't.
Tacking on "without teleporting" makes it super clear to the person using the ability that teleportation doesn't count as moving for triggering this effect. Even if they would have been primed to think otherwise, now it is clear. Teleporting isn't moving (for sure not for this effect).
The only thing that is clear from that spell's specific rules is that the spell's effect isn't triggered by moving using teleportation. That does not at all translate to "Teleporting isn't moving". It translate to the opposite. If a specific rule says something isn't the case in that specific context, then it is implied that the opposite is true outside that specific context.
If your entire viewpoint rests on inference and interpretation... you're a fortune teller rolling the bones, not someone discussing the rules. If teleportation was movement, the rules would say as much.
Questions for the Teleportation is Move(ment) crowd(s):
Keeping your answer in mind... now, what if you're in the area of Spike Growth and teleport to another area within that same Spike Growth but 30ft away? How much damage are you taking?
If you think teleporting is moving, then... "while within the area" ... they ... "moved 30 ft". That's 12d4 damage? Does this actually make any sense though? They never went through those spaces... seems like one of those instances where misapplying the definition of movement to teleportation has derived nonsensical results.
You take 2d4 damage as you enter the area. You have not moved while within the area. You moved in whatever space/plane you deem teleportation magic to use in your world, if you decide they don't simply cease to exist to then exist again.
So you're saying they moved 0ft and ended up 30ft away. We agree! They didn't move, and just ended up 30ft away.
Outside the context of Your Move, movement is also understood to mean: (1) moving unwillingly outside your turn (e.g. Dissonant Whispers);
Why are you calling that movement? That is moving. It uses movement, just as your move uses movement. But, why call it specifically movement, when it instead is moving. The terms used in the spell says, and I quote "to move as far as its speed allows away from you" and never once uses the word movement.
Because it causes you to move as far as your speed allows, you are using a type of movement. One can even make an argument that they need to use the type of movement that has the highest speed, too, at least after they've exhausted the others. Because if you walk 30 ft and have a 60ft fly speed, you still have speed left, and that speed "would allow" you to move farther.
But the term "movement" here is applicable in only exactly the same way as it is during You Move on your turn, Movement Type and Movement Spent. What you're doing is moving while using any available movement to accomplish it.
You're asking me (1) why I call it movement; (2) you state it is moving; (3) you state it uses movement; (4) you state the spell uses the word "move" and never once use the word "movement"; (5) you state that it uses a type of movement. From what I can tell you believe this is not movement but moving, yes? Despite the use of movement and the reference to speed? Didn't you earlier say that referencing speed made the move synonymous with movement?
Moving is never synonymous with movement. Spending speed and spending movement are synonymous. Moving can sometimes be accomplished by spending movement. But some moving is accomplished in other ways, without spending movement.
Movement has a type and speed. Example: Flying 30ft. <--- This is movement.
Move, moving, moved, generally means to change locations. This might be done with movement. This might be done with other means. The act of changing locations is moving. You might accomplish it with or without movement.
I'm having a hard time keeping track of how you define movement vs moving so I'll address the different assumptions I believe you might hold based on your comment above: 1. If you are assuming that something is only considered movement when (1) you move on "Your Move" during your turn while (2) spending movement, moving with the [action]Ready[/spell] action would not be considered movement. 2. If you are assuming that something is only considered movement when (1) you move on "Your Move" during your turn while (2) spending movement, OR the word "movement" is used, then Relentless Avenger is movement, but Dissonant Whispers is not.
Which of the two assumptions are you making if any?
Moving is changing locations. Movement is a means, but not the only means, of accomplishing that.
For the record, though, I didn't disagree about Dissonant Whispers using movement. it obviously does. I disagreed with your statement you were trying to use dissonant whispers to justify. "Outside the context of Your Move, movement is also understood to mean: (1) moving unwillingly outside your turn" <--- This is false. If someone pushes you, that is "moving unwillingly on your turn" that doesn't use movement. Dissonant Whispers is a was to cause someone to move using movement against their will outside their turn, yes, but it doesn't mean: "moving unwillingly outside your turn IS movement" <--- Objectively false.
Relentless Avenger By 7th level, your supernatural focus helps you close off a foe’s retreat. When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you can move up to half your speed immediately after the attack and as part of the same reaction. This movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
Oddly, though... Dissonant Whispers and Skirmisher have nearly identical triggers, both being reactions probably not on your own turn. Why did you separate them into different categories?
Dissonant Whispers causes unwilling movement, whereas movement from the Skirmisher feature is willing.
They're both moving triggered by a reaction that are based on your speed. Willing/Unwilling had nothing to do with how you separated them.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the game's mechanics (rules) are created to support the narrative, not vice versa. If it does the opposite (create a logical gap in the narrative), it defeats the purpose of the rules. If one considers teleportation to not be movement and not count as entering an area, an example of a logical gap in the narrative could be having to explain how the teleporting wizard is not affected by all the whirling, razor-sharp blades made by Blade Barrier that he is now standing in the middle of (or being completely unscathed by the Whirlwind he is casually strolling through).
2 things. I wanted to avoid "enter' debate entirely but I'll touch on it briefly to state this: Your argument here has nothing to do with the word movement.
This is what it looks like without mentioning movement at all:
If one considers teleportation to not count as entering an area, an example of a logical gap in the narrative could be having to explain how the teleporting wizard is not affected by all the whirling, razor-sharp blades made by Blade Barrier that he is now standing in the middle of (or being completely unscathed by the Whirlwind he is casually strolling through).
You see? You're slipping in an irrelevant point to your argument.
Movement has nothing to do with what you're saying there.
But, as an aside, that 2nd thing: There is no logical gap in that example any more than there is when you're standing in that spell area after it first got cast and just casually not taking damage then either. Is it also a logical gap that casting moonbeam ontop of someone doesn't immediately do damage to them right away? But casting it ontop of someone and then shoving their buddy into the area would trigger it on their buddy. is that also a logical gap? If so, your problem with logical gaps is the rules themselves and you should be looking at homebrewing things.
My argument had to do with the teleportation and "entering" discussion, not the "movement" discussion.
That.. is exactly what I said lol.
The logical gap exists when you argue that the teleporting wizard can sit down and have a picnic in the middle of the Whirlwind without having to do anything to try and keep his hat on his head, when anyone not teleporting would be affected by the spell.
No one has argued this here as far as I can tell. I'm certainly not.
The effects of Moonbeam and similar spells do create a slight gap in the logic of the narrative as you mention, but not at all to the same degree a with Whirlwind. As I said, the game mechanics are created to support the narrative, and if it did the opposite to the degree that Whirlwind would under you interpretation of RAW, then it would most likely be considered a game flaw to be errata'ed.
You can walk into the whirlwind and succeed on a save from the spell, you know that right? After which you could... sit down and have a picnic right in the middle of the whirlwind. Being in the thing, round after round, has zero effect on you. I think you just don't like the spell effect lol.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don't think anyone in the "teleportation is moving thus movement" camp was of the opinion that something that increases, decreases or eliminates your movement or speed will have any effect on a teleportation effect.
And of forced "movement"?
So again, just checking if there is any rule significance to this discussion at all?
If you're saying that everyone is just calling it movement while not actually treating it like movement... then, okay. You can use whatever words you want. Make up whatever cipher you like. But by RAW: forcing a creature to move... is not their movement. Mechanically. Game rules wise. That's the only thing I've ever been arguing regarding moving vs movement. You can call "moving" instead "hello kittie fun island adventure time" if you want. But, in 5 e terms the mechanics work the way they are written to work. Forcing someone to move isn't "movement" on their part. And any effects that interact with their movement don't meaningfully interact with that forced move.
So if you're saying you don't treat forced moves like movement, mechanically, but just really enjoy the thought of calling them "movement" for kicks? Carry on brother, you do you.
OK, so your only goal here is to establish that there are different kinds of motion and that rules apply to them differently.
There is what I will call Moving Under Your Own Steam. Moving which is usually based on speed, uses "your move", an action or reaction, and has a type such as flying or swimming, defaulting to land-based walking if not specified. This kind of moving is affected by anything that "increases the cost to move 1 foot". This includes some forced/compelled motion, as long as it uses one of the resources listed above. You would like to call that Movement, even though the rule books do not exclusively use that word for this (even your oft quoted chapter 8 says "You move at half speed in difficult terrain — moving 1 foot in difficult terrain costs 2 feet of speed") and sometimes use that word when not referring to this.
Then there is all other moving (which can surely be cut and diced a hundred different ways). Falling, being pushed or pulled, teleporting, etc, and those forms of moving will not be affected by a change in the "cost per foot" of motion, nor by having a speed of zero.
There are also questions of "willingness", which can apply to both forms of moving (I would not allow someone to choose to fall into a barrier that prevented willing entry because choosing to fall is a kind of willed motion).
If this is a summary of your argument, then I think we agree with you generally. Teleportation is not what I would call Moving Under Your Own Steam, thus will not interact with most features which deal with that concept. If Movement is the word you use to refer to that concept, then congratulations you have won the internet and within your paradigm Teleportation is not "Movement".
I should have worded it another way than "types of movement" as that can easily be confused with movement types (flying, burrowing etc.). That is not what I meant. I was referring to different forms of movement such as willing movement, unwilling movement, forced movement.
I don't remember saying that teleporting wasn't exclusively using your action and bonus actions (it's getting late), but an example of teleporting as a reaction is the Misty Step feature of Archfey patron Warlock. Moving through a portal, such as one created by Arcane Gate likewise doesn't use you action or bonus action.
Ahh - yes, I didn't mean to detract from your "types" of movement, only to add an observation that "movement types" as a game concept do not include Teleport. That said, the distinction between "willing/unwilling/forced" only matters in rather narrow cases, and they're of less interest to me than whether Teleportation is "super-special" or not ;) (Mainly because in most cases the intent of the actor is clear, and so "willing" is usually easily determined.. mounted combat notwithstanding, but I see that as a degenerate case, not the norm.)
I do agree that my observation was not complete .. but you'll notice that of the two counter examples, one is a Reaction (and so doesn't happen on "Your Move") and the other is actually very enlightening: because you are using Your Move to walk (fly, climb, whatever) on your turn, but because Arcane Gate treats two (distantly separated) squares as adjacent, you can move between them. The teleportation is not part of your "speed", any more than Misty Step's teleportation counts against your speed.
Note that in all these cases, it is still plainly true that you have moved from A to B, regardless of if it cost you speed/movement, or whether it was done with an action/reaction/Your Move/bonus action etc. It's also plain you didn't move through any of the space between A and B, so "moved through" conditions do not trigger. And in the case where you weren't forced to do this, you moved willingly.
Questions for the Teleportation is Move(ment) crowd(s):
Keeping your answer in mind... now, what if you're in the area of Spike Growth and teleport to another area within that same Spike Growth but 30ft away? How much damage are you taking?
If you think teleporting is moving, then... "while within the area" ... they ... "moved 30 ft". That's 12d4 damage? Does this actually make any sense though? They never went through those spaces... seems like one of those instances where misapplying the definition of movement to teleportation has derived nonsensical results.
You take 2d4 damage as you enter the area. You have not moved while within the area. You moved in whatever space/plane you deem teleportation magic to use in your world, if you decide they don't simply cease to exist to then exist again.
So you're saying they moved 0ft and ended up 30ft away. We agree! They didn't move, and just ended up 30ft away.
I don't see it like that at all.
I would say that expended 0ft of their Speed, but that they used a teleportation effect to move 30 feet away (without traversing the intervening distance, because that's what Teleport means).
I think the distinction between our two points of view is that I treat the word "move" in most contexts as the normal game definition of "changing location by X distance", rather than the more restrictive game definition of "using your Speed." or "using your movement" or similar. It seems to me that when the rules mean the more restrictive version, they use it explicitly, such as "move up to half your speed", "move willingly on your turn", or "force the target to use their speed to move as far away from you as possible on their turn." etc
To me, the argument about whether things that reduce your speed should apply to teleport misses the point. AFAICT, no one is suggesting that Teleport is a "speed" or grants a speed, or is a movement type (such as Fly/Swim/Climb/etc). If they are making such an argument, they are wrong. It is not a speed, and so things that reduce speed, or cost extra movement do not apply to teleport. But that doesn't mean people who teleport do not move. It is clear that that start in position A and end up in position B. Ergo, they moved.
Questions for the Teleportation is Move(ment) crowd(s):
Keeping your answer in mind... now, what if you're in the area of Spike Growth and teleport to another area within that same Spike Growth but 30ft away? How much damage are you taking?
If you think teleporting is moving, then... "while within the area" ... they ... "moved 30 ft". That's 12d4 damage? Does this actually make any sense though? They never went through those spaces... seems like one of those instances where misapplying the definition of movement to teleportation has derived nonsensical results.
You take 2d4 damage as you enter the area. You have not moved while within the area. You moved in whatever space/plane you deem teleportation magic to use in your world, if you decide they don't simply cease to exist to then exist again.
So you're saying they moved 0ft and ended up 30ft away. We agree! They didn't move, and just ended up 30ft away.
I don't see it like that at all.
I would say that expended 0ft of their Speed, but that they used a teleportation effect to move 30 feet away (without traversing the intervening distance, because that's what Teleport means).
I think the distinction between our two points of view is that I treat the word "move" in most contexts as the normal game definition of "changing location by X distance", rather than the more restrictive game definition of "using your Speed." or "using your movement" or similar. It seems to me that when the rules mean the more restrictive version, they use it explicitly, such as "move up to half your speed", "move willingly on your turn", or "force the target to use their speed to move as far away from you as possible on their turn." etc
To me, the argument about whether things that reduce your speed should apply to teleport misses the point. AFAICT, no one is suggesting that Teleport is a "speed" or grants a speed, or is a movement type (such as Fly/Swim/Climb/etc). If they are making such an argument, they are wrong. It is not a speed, and so things that reduce speed, or cost extra movement do not apply to teleport. But that doesn't mean people who teleport do not move. It is clear that that start in position A and end up in position B. Ergo, they moved.
Or as Galileo said: E pur si muove
Your other comment made me realize the difference between why I don't think they moved and other people do. I'm measuring the distance based on the path they actually took. Yall measuring the distance by arbitrary lines between their starting point and finishing point.
If I moved 10ft north, then 10ft east, then 10ft south, then 10ft west.
My method: I moved 40ft.
Your method: I moved 0 ft.
If someone moves you have to measure that based on the path they actually took.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Your other comment made me realize the difference between why I don't think they moved and other people do. I'm measuring the distance based on the path they actually took. Yall measuring the distance by arbitrary lines between their starting point and finishing point.
If I moved 10ft north, then 10ft east, then 10ft south, then 10ft west.
My method: I moved 40ft.
Your method: I moved 0 ft.
If someone moves you have to measure that based on the path they actually took.
If I moved 10ft north, then 10ft east, then 10ft south, then 10ft west.
that is called moving in a circle
My method: I moved 40ft.
your sure did, by using the starting point and making it an absolute fixed point in space, then traveled to a new point within the path and fixing that points position relative to the previous point. the total distance "moved" is the sum total of the distance traversed between the fixed points.
Your method: I moved 0 ft.
this is incorrect, as we still know distance was traveled between the different fixed points on the path taken.
Teleportation is a direct Point to Point Movement, and the distance traveled is based on making one of those points "an absolute fixed point in space" then measuring the space/distance in-between. Some Teleportation type spells have a limited distance one can "fix a point of space to travel to", some don't have that distance limitation.
Teleportation may have a fractional movement speed, that by the rules of rounding down in D&D, make the "Speed of Movement" = 0, and if that is the case dose that mean fractional speed(s) don't count as moving?
Questions for the Teleportation is Move(ment) crowd(s):
Keeping your answer in mind... now, what if you're in the area of Spike Growth and teleport to another area within that same Spike Growth but 30ft away? How much damage are you taking?
If you think teleporting is moving, then... "while within the area" ... they ... "moved 30 ft". That's 12d4 damage? Does this actually make any sense though? They never went through those spaces... seems like one of those instances where misapplying the definition of movement to teleportation has derived nonsensical results.
You take 2d4 damage as you enter the area. You have not moved while within the area. You moved in whatever space/plane you deem teleportation magic to use in your world, if you decide they don't simply cease to exist to then exist again.
So you're saying they moved 0ft and ended up 30ft away. We agree! They didn't move, and just ended up 30ft away.
I don't see it like that at all.
I would say that expended 0ft of their Speed, but that they used a teleportation effect to move 30 feet away (without traversing the intervening distance, because that's what Teleport means).
I think the distinction between our two points of view is that I treat the word "move" in most contexts as the normal game definition of "changing location by X distance", rather than the more restrictive game definition of "using your Speed." or "using your movement" or similar. It seems to me that when the rules mean the more restrictive version, they use it explicitly, such as "move up to half your speed", "move willingly on your turn", or "force the target to use their speed to move as far away from you as possible on their turn." etc
To me, the argument about whether things that reduce your speed should apply to teleport misses the point. AFAICT, no one is suggesting that Teleport is a "speed" or grants a speed, or is a movement type (such as Fly/Swim/Climb/etc). If they are making such an argument, they are wrong. It is not a speed, and so things that reduce speed, or cost extra movement do not apply to teleport. But that doesn't mean people who teleport do not move. It is clear that that start in position A and end up in position B. Ergo, they moved.
Or as Galileo said: E pur si muove
Your other comment made me realize the difference between why I don't think they moved and other people do. I'm measuring the distance based on the path they actually took. Yall measuring the distance by arbitrary lines between their starting point and finishing point.
If I moved 10ft north, then 10ft east, then 10ft south, then 10ft west.
My method: I moved 40ft.
Your method: I moved 0 ft.
If someone moves you have to measure that based on the path they actually took.
That may seem like what we're doing, but I assure you it isn't. Let's take Fly and Walk instead. Say your character wants to get 30 feet away. You have Fly 30 and Walk 30. You chose either, and you get there in one move. Now say all the ground around it is difficult terrain. You can still fly there in one move. But you can only get halfway there if you walked the whole way.
Say you had something that triggered on "moving 30 feet". Even if you spend 30 feet of your movement on walking, you didn't actually move 30 feet. Only 15 feet. But if you flew, you would have moved 30 feet. Now say, after walking halfway, you took the Dash action, turned around and walked back to your starting point. You've now moved 30 feet (even though you're 0 feet away from where you started). But what if, instead, you Misty Step back? Same thing. You've moved 15 to get to where you were, and now teleported 15 feet back to where you started. That's 30 feet. The "moving 30 feet" trigger now fires.
You've still got an action, so you use Dash and instead Fly 30 feet to get somewhere else. At the end of the round, you'll have moved 60 feet in total, but are now only 30 feet from where you started.
Your other comment made me realize the difference between why I don't think they moved and other people do. I'm measuring the distance based on the path they actually took. Yall measuring the distance by arbitrary lines between their starting point and finishing point.
If I moved 10ft north, then 10ft east, then 10ft south, then 10ft west.
that is called moving in a circle
Square, but, sure.
My method: I moved 40ft.
your sure did, by using the starting point and making it an absolute fixed point in space, then traveled to a new point within the path and fixing that points position relative to the previous point. the total distance "moved" is the sum total of the distance traversed between the fixed points.
Feels like you're fighting the example not the idea behind it. But ok. On your turn you run in a giant circle and spend your whole movement but end in the same spot you started in. Now your only fixed point is the starting point and end point, both being the same point.
Go ahead and change your calcualtion method a third time to fight this example too if you like.
Or, maybe, actually address the idea behind it. You measure arbitrary lines based on distanced between points that aren't representative of the path the character actually took.
Your method: I moved 0 ft.
this is incorrect, as we still know distance was traveled between the different fixed points on the path taken.
Teleportation is a direct Point to Point Movement, and the distance traveled is based on making one of those points "an absolute fixed point in space" then measuring the space/distance in-between. Some Teleportation type spells have a limited distance one can "fix a point of space to travel to", some don't have that distance limitation.
Teleportation may have a fractional movement speed, that by the rules of rounding down in D&D, make the "Speed of Movement" = 0, and if that is the case dose that mean fractional speed(s) don't count as moving?
Envision the path the teleporting guy takes. Picture it.
How far does he move from his perspective. If you traced HIS path. If someone teleports into a space 20ft away. How far did he move, from his perspective. Not to an observer's perspective. To his perspective.
I'll tell you. He didn't move.
The place he started and the place he ended had no distance between them that he needed to cross. From his perspective the distance between A and B is 0. Why? How? That's impossible!? Yeah, you're right... teleportation is impossible.
But from his perspective he didn't move at all. When you trace his path he didn't move at all. From his perspective everything else shifted, and shifted immediately.
It'd be super disorienting to be honest. But in the path he took, from A to B... A and B were stacked atop one another and were the same point. The distance he moved was 0.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Right. And, if you spend 5 ft of movement to Transport Via Plants you have moved while prone via teleportation. But teleportation, more broadly, isn't done on your move.
The rules written in the various chapters of the source books are general rules. Some are optional and listed as such. Specific rules can be found described in the specific spells, class features, feats etc. Sometimes, specific exceptions to the rules will be given as examples in the general rules, but will be explicitly described as such. It is one thing to interpret the general rule of "To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation" to somehow be a specific rule; it is another to take the specific example in that rule (teleportation as a category) and say that only applies to a specific spell in said category. The rules said "teleportation", not Transport via Plants.
Teleportation, more broadly, isn't done on your move. That's a fact lol.
What are you even responding to? Looking past portals, I don't know of any teleportation effect that is done on your move, that is correct. But what does that have to do with the comment you responded to?
To clarify, the quote talks about "moving", not the phase "your move".
Tacking on "without teleporting" makes it super clear to the person using the ability that teleportation doesn't count as moving for triggering this effect. Even if they would have been primed to think otherwise, now it is clear. Teleporting isn't moving (for sure not for this effect).
The only thing that is clear from that spell's specific rules is that the spell's effect isn't triggered by moving using teleportation. That does not at all translate to "Teleporting isn't moving". It translate to the opposite. If a specific rule says something isn't the case in that specific context, then it is implied that the opposite is true outside that specific context.
If your entire viewpoint rests on inference and interpretation... you're a fortune teller rolling the bones, not someone discussing the rules. If teleportation was movement, the rules would say as much.
Of course I am interpreting. So are you. As soon as you go away from direct quotation, you are entering the realm of interpretation. That is what rule adjudication is all about. You can't explain something without interpretation first.
Questions for the Teleportation is Move(ment) crowd(s):
Keeping your answer in mind... now, what if you're in the area of Spike Growth and teleport to another area within that same Spike Growth but 30ft away? How much damage are you taking?
You take 2d4 damage as you enter the area. You have not moved while within the area. You moved in whatever space/plane you deem teleportation magic to use in your world, if you decide they don't simply cease to exist to then exist again.
So you're saying they moved 0ft and ended up 30ft away. We agree! They didn't move, and just ended up 30ft away.
They moved 0 feet, yes. However, they changed position, so they moved. And it seems we do agree on that if you stand by your own statements:
Ravnodaus "Move, moving, moved, generally means to change locations. This might be done with movement. This might be done with other means. The act of changing locations is moving."
(other thread on same topic) "You started at A and ended at B. You have moved between those positions. The distance is measurable. Therefore you moved X feet."
For the record, though, I didn't disagree about Dissonant Whispers using movement. it obviously does. I disagreed with your statement you were trying to use dissonant whispers to justify. "Outside the context of Your Move, movement is also understood to mean: (1) moving unwillingly outside your turn" <--- This is false. If someone pushes you, that is "moving unwillingly on your turn" that doesn't use movement. Dissonant Whispers is a was to cause someone to move using movement against their will outside their turn, yes, but it doesn't mean: "moving unwillingly outside your turn IS movement" <--- Objectively false.
You are taking things out of context as I was listing different forms of movement that "movement" could also refer to. As you yourself agree, "movement" is also used to describe spells such as Dissonant Whispers. However, it seems we disagree as to whether or not "forced movement" is "movement". I put "forced movement" and "unwilling movement" in two separate categories.
Oddly, though... Dissonant Whispers and Skirmisher have nearly identical triggers, both being reactions probably not on your own turn. Why did you separate them into different categories?
Dissonant Whispers causes unwilling movement, whereas movement from the Skirmisher feature is willing.
They're both moving triggered by a reaction that are based on your speed. Willing/Unwilling had nothing to do with how you separated them.
Willing/Unwilling was exactly how I separated them. Read the OP again if you didn't understand that. I listed 4 different forms of movement (I originally wrote "types of movement" but that was understandably confusing), and clearly defined each of them. Telling someone else what their intentions were for doing something is a really off-putting way to argument your cause to be honest, even if you simply misunderstood what I wrote.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the game's mechanics (rules) are created to support the narrative, not vice versa. If it does the opposite (create a logical gap in the narrative), it defeats the purpose of the rules. If one considers teleportation to not be movement and not count as entering an area, an example of a logical gap in the narrative could be having to explain how the teleporting wizard is not affected by all the whirling, razor-sharp blades made by Blade Barrier that he is now standing in the middle of (or being completely unscathed by the Whirlwind he is casually strolling through).
2 things. I wanted to avoid "enter' debate entirely but I'll touch on it briefly to state this: Your argument here has nothing to do with the word movement.
This is what it looks like without mentioning movement at all:
If one considers teleportation to not count as entering an area, an example of a logical gap in the narrative could be having to explain how the teleporting wizard is not affected by all the whirling, razor-sharp blades made by Blade Barrier that he is now standing in the middle of (or being completely unscathed by the Whirlwind he is casually strolling through).
You see? You're slipping in an irrelevant point to your argument.
Movement has nothing to do with what you're saying there.
But, as an aside, that 2nd thing: There is no logical gap in that example any more than there is when you're standing in that spell area after it first got cast and just casually not taking damage then either. Is it also a logical gap that casting moonbeam ontop of someone doesn't immediately do damage to them right away? But casting it ontop of someone and then shoving their buddy into the area would trigger it on their buddy. is that also a logical gap? If so, your problem with logical gaps is the rules themselves and you should be looking at homebrewing things.
My argument had to do with the teleportation and "entering" discussion, not the "movement" discussion.
That.. is exactly what I said lol.
Ah, I see what you mean now. I didn't try to make a point. My stance, as written in the OP, is that "move" and "movement" are most often used synonymously. Knowing this, and knowing I was addressing "question 2" (entering) in the OP, I didn't expect you to comment on it in a "question 1" (movement) capacity. For the paragraph you're commenting on, I might as well have used "moving" instead of "movement".
The logical gap exists when you argue that the teleporting wizard can sit down and have a picnic in the middle of the Whirlwind without having to do anything to try and keep his hat on his head, when anyone not teleporting would be affected by the spell.
No one has argued this here as far as I can tell. I'm certainly not.
You are arguing that teleporting into the area exempts the caster from making a saving throw, are you not? That is what I meant. The rest was fluff to underline my point.
The effects of Moonbeam and similar spells do create a slight gap in the logic of the narrative as you mention, but not at all to the same degree a with Whirlwind. As I said, the game mechanics are created to support the narrative, and if it did the opposite to the degree that Whirlwind would under you interpretation of RAW, then it would most likely be considered a game flaw to be errata'ed.
You can walk into the whirlwind and succeed on a save from the spell, you know that right? After which you could... sit down and have a picnic right in the middle of the whirlwind. Being in the thing, round after round, has zero effect on you. I think you just don't like the spell effect lol.
Sure. But you still had to make some effort to get to that point (succeed on a saving throw). It is much easier to narratively explain how your effort enables you to have your picnic, than how simply ignoring the whirlwind enables you to do the same. That is how I feel at least. If you believe the two things make equal sense then good for you.
Your other comment made me realize the difference between why I don't think they moved and other people do. I'm measuring the distance based on the path they actually took. Yall measuring the distance by arbitrary lines between their starting point and finishing point.
If I moved 10ft north, then 10ft east, then 10ft south, then 10ft west.
My method: I moved 40ft.
Your method: I moved 0 ft.
If someone moves you have to measure that based on the path they actually took.
The difference between "My method: I moved 40ft." and "Your method: I moved 0 ft." is that the former is how far the character has actually moved, and the latter is the Range covered. They are two different terms, and Range is defined by RAW as seen below:
Ranges. To determine the range on a grid between two things—whether creatures or objects—start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them and stop counting in the space of the other one. Count by the shortest route.
As you yourself argue seem to understand intuitively, the Range and the distance you actually move are two separate things. The reason this gets topic gets muddled even more is because "range" and "a distance moved" often gets mixed up in colloquial speech.
Apply this knowledge to a spell such as Misty Step and you get a character that moves 0 feet but covers a Range of roughly 500 feet. Does this make sense to you?
I should have worded it another way than "types of movement" as that can easily be confused with movement types (flying, burrowing etc.). That is not what I meant. I was referring to different forms of movement such as willing movement, unwilling movement, forced movement.
I don't remember saying that teleporting wasn't exclusively using your action and bonus actions (it's getting late), but an example of teleporting as a reaction is the Misty Step feature of Archfey patron Warlock. Moving through a portal, such as one created by Arcane Gate likewise doesn't use you action or bonus action.
I do agree that my observation was not complete .. but you'll notice that of the two counter examples, one is a Reaction (and so doesn't happen on "Your Move") and the other is actually very enlightening: because you are using Your Move to walk (fly, climb, whatever) on your turn, but because Arcane Gate treats two (distantly separated) squares as adjacent, you can move between them. The teleportation is not part of your "speed", any more than Misty Step's teleportation counts against your speed.
I only responded to your claim that "Teleport abilities exclusively take an action or bonus action to perform". That is why I listed instances of that not being true. I'm not trying to argue as there's nothing to argue about :)
Note that in all these cases, it is still plainly true that you have moved from A to B, regardless of if it cost you speed/movement, or whether it was done with an action/reaction/Your Move/bonus action etc. It's also plain you didn't move through any of the space between A and B, so "moved through" conditions do not trigger. And in the case where you weren't forced to do this, you moved willingly.
Your other comment made me realize the difference between why I don't think they moved and other people do. I'm measuring the distance based on the path they actually took. Yall measuring the distance by arbitrary lines between their starting point and finishing point.
If I moved 10ft north, then 10ft east, then 10ft south, then 10ft west.
that is called moving in a circle
Square, but, sure.
My method: I moved 40ft.
your sure did, by using the starting point and making it an absolute fixed point in space, then traveled to a new point within the path and fixing that points position relative to the previous point. the total distance "moved" is the sum total of the distance traversed between the fixed points.
Feels like you're fighting the example not the idea behind it. But ok. On your turn you run in a giant circle and spend your whole movement but end in the same spot you started in. Now your only fixed point is the starting point and end point, both being the same point.
Go ahead and change your calcualtion method a third time to fight this example too if you like.
Or, maybe, actually address the idea behind it. You measure arbitrary lines based on distanced between points that aren't representative of the path the character actually took.
Your method: I moved 0 ft.
this is incorrect, as we still know distance was traveled between the different fixed points on the path taken.
Teleportation is a direct Point to Point Movement, and the distance traveled is based on making one of those points "an absolute fixed point in space" then measuring the space/distance in-between. Some Teleportation type spells have a limited distance one can "fix a point of space to travel to", some don't have that distance limitation.
Teleportation may have a fractional movement speed, that by the rules of rounding down in D&D, make the "Speed of Movement" = 0, and if that is the case dose that mean fractional speed(s) don't count as moving?
Envision the path the teleporting guy takes. Picture it.
How far does he move from his perspective. If you traced HIS path. If someone teleports into a space 20ft away. How far did he move, from his perspective. Not to an observer's perspective. To his perspective.
I'll tell you. He didn't move.
The place he started and the place he ended had no distance between them that he needed to cross. From his perspective the distance between A and B is 0. Why? How? That's impossible!? Yeah, you're right... teleportation is impossible.
But from his perspective he didn't move at all. When you trace his path he didn't move at all. From his perspective everything else shifted, and shifted immediately.
It'd be super disorienting to be honest. But in the path he took, from A to B... A and B were stacked atop one another and were the same point. The distance he moved was 0.
Feels like you're fighting the example not the idea behind it. But ok. On your turn you run in a giant circle and spend your whole movement but end in the same spot you started in. Now your only fixed point is the starting point and end point, both being the same point.
Go ahead and change your calcualtion method a third time to fight this example too if you like.
Or, maybe, actually address the idea behind it. You measure arbitrary lines based on distanced between points that aren't representative of the path the character actually took.
The running in circles reference is a figure of speech that apparently you don't seem to get it. No I did not fight the example you gave I simply explained how even you used points of reference to define what direction and distance you were traveling in, and by doing so defined your "path of travel"
Or, maybe, actually address the idea behind it. You measure arbitrary lines based on distanced between points that aren't representative of the path the character actually took.
What "arbitrary lines" are you referring to, because you seem to think if an entity does not physically traverse the space between two points they have not traveled that distance or defined a "path".
On your turn you run in a giant circle and spend your whole movement but end in the same spot you started in. Now your only fixed point is the starting point and end point, both being the same point.
Then by that logic and the idea of your example your own method would result in moving 0 ft, as your only fixed point of reference is the start/end point that you defined as being both.
Envision the path the teleporting guy takes. Picture it.
OK, I envision like others the path the teleporting guy takes is a straight line.
How far does he move from his perspective. If you traced HIS path. If someone teleports into a space 20ft away. How far did he move, from his perspective. Not to an observer's perspective. To his perspective.
His perspective is the point he picks to define the straight path to the point he will travel to, if that point is 20ft away then he will move 20ft to that point from his own perspective that the space he moved into is different from the space he was in.
I'll tell you. He didn't move.
But according to you he teleported to a space 20ft away, so by your own "arbitrary line" he moved, which is it did he move or did he not move.
The place he started and the place he ended had no distance between them that he needed to cross. From his perspective the distance between A and B is 0. Why? How? That's impossible!? Yeah, you're right... teleportation is impossible.
But from his perspective he didn't move at all. When you trace his path he didn't move at all. From his perspective everything else shifted, and shifted immediately.
And this is where you misunderstand, as the place he ended is different from the place he started, and from his own perspective he has moved 20ft using teleportation. His "path" is the line he "envisioned" from his starting place to the place he will end in, and the distance is the measure of space between the starting place and the ending place.
It'd be super disorienting to be honest. But in the path he took, from A to B... A and B were stacked atop one another and were the same point. The distance he moved was 0.
A to B is 20ft apart given your idea of an example, and therefore could not be "stacked" atop one another to be considered the same point even from his own perspective and envisioned "path of travel".
Thanks for playing, insert coin to continue , 5.. 4.. 3...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh I absolutely loath "willing" triggers, at least for non-mental effects. Its fine that Frightened examines whether a creature is willingly moving closer or being drug closer against its will... but Booming Blade? They seem to have tacked that on there not for an in-game reason, but rather to shut down synergy with forced movement effects for (misguided) balance concerns. Too complicated!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Careful. Keep this up and you'll ask why Opportunity Attacks turn people into telepaths, since only hostile creatures provoke them.
I will just point out that asking a person to clarify their non-logical and non-rules-consistent view on what it means for something to “use movement” without that thing actually “using movement” does not make the person ASKING the question the confused one.
Asking the guy claiming “it uses movement” “how much movement does it use, then?” is a legitimate clarification question.
I mean, we're closer to agreement than disagreeing entirely. I see those same 3 categories, generally speaking, with just minor modifications. Category 2 doesn't, in my estimation, include the "sometimes referencing a flat value" stuff, those go into category 3 (unless it says it costs movement, handful of those out there). And, that category 3 shouldn't ever be called movement for clarity sake.
Yeah, I'm right there with you. OAs make it clear right out the gate they're only 1 + 2. But, sure.
Well, lost me again. Anything that says "moves" is all three. Sure. But, anything that says Movement, or Speed for that matter, is categories 1 + 2. Your linked examples right up there don't use the word "movement" at all. Booming Blade, Frightened, Spike Growth, Hallow. "Movement" doesn't appear in those texts.
It probably means category 1. It technically could include category 2 depending how it is worded overall. But for sure doesn't mean category 3.
It does differentiate between 1/2 vs 3 strongly. 1+2 both use a movement speed/type and 3 doesn't. That is a huge distinction. Anything that impacts your speed or available movement type options directly impacts 1/2 categories but not category 3. Being slowed changes the amount you can move in category 1/2 but not 3. Getting hit by ray of frost changes the distance you move with 1/2 but not 3.
Being forcibly moved(3) is distinct from your movement(1/2) in that being forcibly moved has absolutely nothing to do with your available movement type or movement speed... ie, nothing to do with your movement.
Yea, that'd have been great.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So, after a week of insistent arguing, you can't actually name a single situation where the distinction is meaningfully useful? I don't think anyone in the "teleportation is moving thus movement" camp was of the opinion that something that increases, decreases or eliminates your movement or speed will have any effect on a teleportation effect. So again, just checking if there is any rule significance to this discussion at all?
Nah. If there's a situation where the player somehow isn't sure whether a creature is hostile or not, that's just an opportunity for role play
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What? I just listed a bunch. Even actual examples from earlier in this thread.
And of forced "movement"?
If you're saying that everyone is just calling it movement while not actually treating it like movement... then, okay. You can use whatever words you want. Make up whatever cipher you like. But by RAW: forcing a creature to move... is not their movement. Mechanically. Game rules wise. That's the only thing I've ever been arguing regarding moving vs movement. You can call "moving" instead "hello kittie fun island adventure time" if you want. But, in 5 e terms the mechanics work the way they are written to work. Forcing someone to move isn't "movement" on their part. And any effects that interact with their movement don't meaningfully interact with that forced move.
So if you're saying you don't treat forced moves like movement, mechanically, but just really enjoy the thought of calling them "movement" for kicks? Carry on brother, you do you.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The rules written in the various chapters of the source books are general rules. Some are optional and listed as such. Specific rules can be found described in the specific spells, class features, feats etc. Sometimes, specific exceptions to the rules will be given as examples in the general rules, but will be explicitly described as such. It is one thing to interpret the general rule of "To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation" to somehow be a specific rule; it is another to take the specific example in that rule (teleportation as a category) and say that only applies to a specific spell in said category. The rules said "teleportation", not Transport via Plants.
Justifying your interpretation by arguing what you believe the authors must have thought when they wrote the general rules is a poor way of arguing from a purely RAW perspective in my opinion.
The only thing that is clear from that spell's specific rules is that the spell's effect isn't triggered by moving using teleportation. That does not at all translate to "Teleporting isn't moving". It translate to the opposite. If a specific rule says something isn't the case in that specific context, then it is implied that the opposite is true outside that specific context.
You're asking me (1) why I call it movement; (2) you state it is moving; (3) you state it uses movement; (4) you state the spell uses the word "move" and never once use the word "movement"; (5) you state that it uses a type of movement.
From what I can tell you believe this is not movement but moving, yes? Despite the use of movement and the reference to speed? Didn't you earlier say that referencing speed made the move synonymous with movement?
I'm having a hard time keeping track of how you define movement vs moving so I'll address the different assumptions I believe you might hold based on your comment above:
1. If you are assuming that something is only considered movement when (1) you move on "Your Move" during your turn while (2) spending movement, moving with the [action]Ready[/spell] action would not be considered movement.
2. If you are assuming that something is only considered movement when (1) you move on "Your Move" during your turn while (2) spending movement, OR the word "movement" is used, then Relentless Avenger is movement, but Dissonant Whispers is not.
Which of the two assumptions are you making if any?
Dissonant Whispers causes unwilling movement, whereas movement from the Skirmisher feature is willing.
My argument had to do with the teleportation and "entering" discussion, not the "movement" discussion. The logical gap exists when you argue that the teleporting wizard can sit down and have a picnic in the middle of the Whirlwind without having to do anything to try and keep his hat on his head, when anyone not teleporting would be affected by the spell. The effects of Moonbeam and similar spells do create a slight gap in the logic of the narrative as you mention, but not at all to the same degree a with Whirlwind. As I said, the game mechanics are created to support the narrative, and if it did the opposite to the degree that Whirlwind would under you interpretation of RAW, then it would most likely be considered a game flaw to be errata'ed.
Thank you :)
Teleportation, more broadly, isn't done on your move. That's a fact lol.
I was asked how I interpret something. I answered how I interpret it. If the authors want a rule in the game, they'll write it. You won't have to infer something not written in black and white. If teleportation was a type of movement, the rest of any of the books would just say that. They don't.
If your entire viewpoint rests on inference and interpretation... you're a fortune teller rolling the bones, not someone discussing the rules. If teleportation was movement, the rules would say as much.
So you're saying they moved 0ft and ended up 30ft away. We agree! They didn't move, and just ended up 30ft away.
Moving is never synonymous with movement. Spending speed and spending movement are synonymous. Moving can sometimes be accomplished by spending movement. But some moving is accomplished in other ways, without spending movement.
Movement has a type and speed. Example: Flying 30ft. <--- This is movement.
Move, moving, moved, generally means to change locations. This might be done with movement. This might be done with other means. The act of changing locations is moving. You might accomplish it with or without movement.
Moving is changing locations. Movement is a means, but not the only means, of accomplishing that.
For the record, though, I didn't disagree about Dissonant Whispers using movement. it obviously does. I disagreed with your statement you were trying to use dissonant whispers to justify. "Outside the context of Your Move, movement is also understood to mean: (1) moving unwillingly outside your turn" <--- This is false. If someone pushes you, that is "moving unwillingly on your turn" that doesn't use movement. Dissonant Whispers is a was to cause someone to move using movement against their will outside their turn, yes, but it doesn't mean: "moving unwillingly outside your turn IS movement" <--- Objectively false.
They're both moving triggered by a reaction that are based on your speed. Willing/Unwilling had nothing to do with how you separated them.
That.. is exactly what I said lol.
No one has argued this here as far as I can tell. I'm certainly not.
You can walk into the whirlwind and succeed on a save from the spell, you know that right? After which you could... sit down and have a picnic right in the middle of the whirlwind. Being in the thing, round after round, has zero effect on you. I think you just don't like the spell effect lol.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
OK, so your only goal here is to establish that there are different kinds of motion and that rules apply to them differently.
There is what I will call Moving Under Your Own Steam. Moving which is usually based on speed, uses "your move", an action or reaction, and has a type such as flying or swimming, defaulting to land-based walking if not specified. This kind of moving is affected by anything that "increases the cost to move 1 foot". This includes some forced/compelled motion, as long as it uses one of the resources listed above. You would like to call that Movement, even though the rule books do not exclusively use that word for this (even your oft quoted chapter 8 says "You move at half speed in difficult terrain — moving 1 foot in difficult terrain costs 2 feet of speed") and sometimes use that word when not referring to this.
Then there is all other moving (which can surely be cut and diced a hundred different ways). Falling, being pushed or pulled, teleporting, etc, and those forms of moving will not be affected by a change in the "cost per foot" of motion, nor by having a speed of zero.
There are also questions of "willingness", which can apply to both forms of moving (I would not allow someone to choose to fall into a barrier that prevented willing entry because choosing to fall is a kind of willed motion).
If this is a summary of your argument, then I think we agree with you generally. Teleportation is not what I would call Moving Under Your Own Steam, thus will not interact with most features which deal with that concept. If Movement is the word you use to refer to that concept, then congratulations you have won the internet and within your paradigm Teleportation is not "Movement".
Ahh - yes, I didn't mean to detract from your "types" of movement, only to add an observation that "movement types" as a game concept do not include Teleport. That said, the distinction between "willing/unwilling/forced" only matters in rather narrow cases, and they're of less interest to me than whether Teleportation is "super-special" or not ;) (Mainly because in most cases the intent of the actor is clear, and so "willing" is usually easily determined.. mounted combat notwithstanding, but I see that as a degenerate case, not the norm.)
I do agree that my observation was not complete .. but you'll notice that of the two counter examples, one is a Reaction (and so doesn't happen on "Your Move") and the other is actually very enlightening: because you are using Your Move to walk (fly, climb, whatever) on your turn, but because Arcane Gate treats two (distantly separated) squares as adjacent, you can move between them. The teleportation is not part of your "speed", any more than Misty Step's teleportation counts against your speed.
Note that in all these cases, it is still plainly true that you have moved from A to B, regardless of if it cost you speed/movement, or whether it was done with an action/reaction/Your Move/bonus action etc. It's also plain you didn't move through any of the space between A and B, so "moved through" conditions do not trigger. And in the case where you weren't forced to do this, you moved willingly.
I don't see it like that at all.
I would say that expended 0ft of their Speed, but that they used a teleportation effect to move 30 feet away (without traversing the intervening distance, because that's what Teleport means).
I think the distinction between our two points of view is that I treat the word "move" in most contexts as the normal game definition of "changing location by X distance", rather than the more restrictive game definition of "using your Speed." or "using your movement" or similar. It seems to me that when the rules mean the more restrictive version, they use it explicitly, such as "move up to half your speed", "move willingly on your turn", or "force the target to use their speed to move as far away from you as possible on their turn." etc
To me, the argument about whether things that reduce your speed should apply to teleport misses the point. AFAICT, no one is suggesting that Teleport is a "speed" or grants a speed, or is a movement type (such as Fly/Swim/Climb/etc). If they are making such an argument, they are wrong. It is not a speed, and so things that reduce speed, or cost extra movement do not apply to teleport.
But that doesn't mean people who teleport do not move. It is clear that that start in position A and end up in position B. Ergo, they moved.
Or as Galileo said: E pur si muove
Your other comment made me realize the difference between why I don't think they moved and other people do. I'm measuring the distance based on the path they actually took. Yall measuring the distance by arbitrary lines between their starting point and finishing point.
If I moved 10ft north, then 10ft east, then 10ft south, then 10ft west.
If someone moves you have to measure that based on the path they actually took.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
that is called moving in a circle
your sure did, by using the starting point and making it an absolute fixed point in space, then traveled to a new point within the path and fixing that points position relative to the previous point. the total distance "moved" is the sum total of the distance traversed between the fixed points.
this is incorrect, as we still know distance was traveled between the different fixed points on the path taken.
Teleportation is a direct Point to Point Movement, and the distance traveled is based on making one of those points "an absolute fixed point in space" then measuring the space/distance in-between. Some Teleportation type spells have a limited distance one can "fix a point of space to travel to", some don't have that distance limitation.
Teleportation may have a fractional movement speed, that by the rules of rounding down in D&D, make the "Speed of Movement" = 0, and if that is the case dose that mean fractional speed(s) don't count as moving?
That may seem like what we're doing, but I assure you it isn't.
Let's take Fly and Walk instead.
Say your character wants to get 30 feet away. You have Fly 30 and Walk 30. You chose either, and you get there in one move.
Now say all the ground around it is difficult terrain. You can still fly there in one move. But you can only get halfway there if you walked the whole way.
Say you had something that triggered on "moving 30 feet". Even if you spend 30 feet of your movement on walking, you didn't actually move 30 feet. Only 15 feet. But if you flew, you would have moved 30 feet.
Now say, after walking halfway, you took the Dash action, turned around and walked back to your starting point. You've now moved 30 feet (even though you're 0 feet away from where you started).
But what if, instead, you Misty Step back? Same thing. You've moved 15 to get to where you were, and now teleported 15 feet back to where you started. That's 30 feet. The "moving 30 feet" trigger now fires.
You've still got an action, so you use Dash and instead Fly 30 feet to get somewhere else. At the end of the round, you'll have moved 60 feet in total, but are now only 30 feet from where you started.
Square, but, sure.
Feels like you're fighting the example not the idea behind it. But ok. On your turn you run in a giant circle and spend your whole movement but end in the same spot you started in. Now your only fixed point is the starting point and end point, both being the same point.
Go ahead and change your calcualtion method a third time to fight this example too if you like.
Or, maybe, actually address the idea behind it. You measure arbitrary lines based on distanced between points that aren't representative of the path the character actually took.
Envision the path the teleporting guy takes. Picture it.
How far does he move from his perspective. If you traced HIS path. If someone teleports into a space 20ft away. How far did he move, from his perspective. Not to an observer's perspective. To his perspective.
I'll tell you. He didn't move.
The place he started and the place he ended had no distance between them that he needed to cross. From his perspective the distance between A and B is 0. Why? How? That's impossible!? Yeah, you're right... teleportation is impossible.
But from his perspective he didn't move at all. When you trace his path he didn't move at all. From his perspective everything else shifted, and shifted immediately.
It'd be super disorienting to be honest. But in the path he took, from A to B... A and B were stacked atop one another and were the same point. The distance he moved was 0.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What are you even responding to? Looking past portals, I don't know of any teleportation effect that is done on your move, that is correct. But what does that have to do with the comment you responded to?
To clarify, the quote talks about "moving", not the phase "your move".
Of course I am interpreting. So are you. As soon as you go away from direct quotation, you are entering the realm of interpretation. That is what rule adjudication is all about. You can't explain something without interpretation first.
They moved 0 feet, yes. However, they changed position, so they moved.
And it seems we do agree on that if you stand by your own statements:
You are taking things out of context as I was listing different forms of movement that "movement" could also refer to. As you yourself agree, "movement" is also used to describe spells such as Dissonant Whispers. However, it seems we disagree as to whether or not "forced movement" is "movement". I put "forced movement" and "unwilling movement" in two separate categories.
Willing/Unwilling was exactly how I separated them. Read the OP again if you didn't understand that. I listed 4 different forms of movement (I originally wrote "types of movement" but that was understandably confusing), and clearly defined each of them. Telling someone else what their intentions were for doing something is a really off-putting way to argument your cause to be honest, even if you simply misunderstood what I wrote.
Ah, I see what you mean now. I didn't try to make a point. My stance, as written in the OP, is that "move" and "movement" are most often used synonymously. Knowing this, and knowing I was addressing "question 2" (entering) in the OP, I didn't expect you to comment on it in a "question 1" (movement) capacity. For the paragraph you're commenting on, I might as well have used "moving" instead of "movement".
You are arguing that teleporting into the area exempts the caster from making a saving throw, are you not? That is what I meant. The rest was fluff to underline my point.
Sure. But you still had to make some effort to get to that point (succeed on a saving throw). It is much easier to narratively explain how your effort enables you to have your picnic, than how simply ignoring the whirlwind enables you to do the same. That is how I feel at least. If you believe the two things make equal sense then good for you.
The difference between "My method: I moved 40ft." and "Your method: I moved 0 ft." is that the former is how far the character has actually moved, and the latter is the Range covered. They are two different terms, and Range is defined by RAW as seen below:
As you yourself argue seem to understand intuitively, the Range and the distance you actually move are two separate things.
The reason this gets topic gets muddled even more is because "range" and "a distance moved" often gets mixed up in colloquial speech.
Apply this knowledge to a spell such as Misty Step and you get a character that moves 0 feet but covers a Range of roughly 500 feet.
Does this make sense to you?
I only responded to your claim that "Teleport abilities exclusively take an action or bonus action to perform". That is why I listed instances of that not being true. I'm not trying to argue as there's nothing to argue about :)
I agree :)
The running in circles reference is a figure of speech that apparently you don't seem to get it. No I did not fight the example you gave I simply explained how even you used points of reference to define what direction and distance you were traveling in, and by doing so defined your "path of travel"
What "arbitrary lines" are you referring to, because you seem to think if an entity does not physically traverse the space between two points they have not traveled that distance or defined a "path".
Then by that logic and the idea of your example your own method would result in moving 0 ft, as your only fixed point of reference is the start/end point that you defined as being both.
OK, I envision like others the path the teleporting guy takes is a straight line.
His perspective is the point he picks to define the straight path to the point he will travel to, if that point is 20ft away then he will move 20ft to that point from his own perspective that the space he moved into is different from the space he was in.
But according to you he teleported to a space 20ft away, so by your own "arbitrary line" he moved, which is it did he move or did he not move.
And this is where you misunderstand, as the place he ended is different from the place he started, and from his own perspective he has moved 20ft using teleportation. His "path" is the line he "envisioned" from his starting place to the place he will end in, and the distance is the measure of space between the starting place and the ending place.
A to B is 20ft apart given your idea of an example, and therefore could not be "stacked" atop one another to be considered the same point even from his own perspective and envisioned "path of travel".
Thanks for playing, insert coin to continue , 5.. 4.. 3...