Imagine that we record the movements of a person in contact with the ground as a line path in a 2D plane. If the person leaps from point A to point B, we cannot plot that path as a line, only two unconnected points. (They are not in contact with the ground, so they don't leave a path on it). You might argue that this means the line between them has no distance. But I argue the path exists, it's just not visible on the 2D projection.
I wouldn't argue that at all. Nor have I ever. I've consistently argued instead this: I'd argue we follow his exact path and calculate how far he moved along the arc he actually took. NOT the line between the two points the way you want to measure it.
Say A and B are 40ft apart and I fly up directly from A and fly in a sweeping arc until landing on B after having used my full 60ft ft speed.
I'd rule they moved 60ft. You'd rule they moved 40 ft.
Let me try again. Have you ever heard of Flatland? In the 2D projection example, I'm talking about what someone who can only see in 2D could see. A 2D entity can't see the path in 3D, only the points in 2D. And in your example, since they measure only the distances in 2D (because that's what is important to them), then yes, they would say the person has moved 40 feet. The other 20 feet moved in 3D space is irrelevant to their measurements. It doesn't exist to them. They have no way to measure or know about it. A 2D entity who believed as you do, would say that the person moved 0 feet, because there's no 2D-only path between those points.
lol... Are you a 2D entity?
I trust you've heard of an analogy ?
If no, and you're capable of three dimensional spatial thinking, then go ahead and just measure the path the character actually took. Not an arbitrary line they didn't take.
But, when we go up to 3D (which is the dimensions we care about), we measure the path as 60 feet. That's what is important to us.
Correct, his ACTUAL path is what is important. The result here, is from MY method of measuring his ACTUAL path.
Sigh. You cannot measure his 3D-path when he teleports. But that doesn't matter. The distance he traveled in that instant is the distance between those two points. It's not some arbitrary set of other points. It's just those two points. You keep saying to "measure the actual path" and then, "It's 0 feet". It's patently not 0 feet, since that requires the two points to be connected in 3D space. And they are not. I get that you're arguing that he doesn't physically move through 3D space. And I get that you _could_ argue that some sort of space-time warping allows him to move between those two points without "moving", but I'm saying that none of that is important. Only the distance moved as measured between discrete locations in 3D space is relevant. The idea that you need continuous motion through contiguous locations in 3D space to define a path is where you're wrong.
Back to the 2D analogy. If you leave the 2D plane and fly and then rejoin it, the 2D points are not connected. Your argument says that the person moved 0 feet in the 2D plane. This is incorrect.
Now, moving up to 3D. (still with me?) When you "leave the 3 dimensions of space" by teleporting, you are no longer "projecting" into 3D. You don't leave a path in the 3D projection. When you arrive in your new location, it's the same idea as when the person was flying above the 2D space. The 2D projection doesn't know about 3D. the 3D projection doesn't care about higher dimensions.
The teleport path exists, but we can't measure it through the other dimension that it passes.
Yes, we can measure it. It is 0ft. I've been giving you it's measurement repeatedly.
The measurement of the path in 3D space is the distance between the two points. That's how far you've "moved" by any measure that we care about. The idea that you can move through physically less space (by bending space/time or whatever) is irrelevant to the measurement of how far you've moved in 3D space.
But the distance we care about is the distance between those two points.
Why because now you're a 2D entity????
We've moved from the 2D analogy into 3D now. Please try to keep up.
Any higher-order distance in a different dimension is irrelevant to us. But the two points are connected by a path, and the 3D projection length of that path is X feet, even if there are only 2 locations in 3D space that we can see.
You're talking an awful lot like you think you're a 2d entity here.
Just. Measure. His. Actual. Path. 0ft.
Sigh. Ok. His path passes through a myriad of higher dimensions, and a thousand years of horrors are visited upon his soul, but all memory of it is wiped from his mind. His body and very essence are wiped from reality and recreated by a vengeful cosmic entity from beyond time itself, who then returns it, completely unaware, to his intended destination, a mere moment after he left. How far did he travel? 30 feet, fer cryin' out loud.
Sigh. Ok. His path passes through a myriad of higher dimensions, and a thousand years of horrors are visited upon his soul, but all memory of it is wiped from his mind. His body and very essence are wiped from reality and recreated by a vengeful cosmic entity from beyond time itself, who then returns it, completely unaware, to his intended destination, a mere moment after he left. How far did he travel? 30 feet, fer cryin' out loud.
It can be argued that the targeting metrics of Dimension Door infer a specific override to spell targeting rules, but its not explicitly stated that the spell overrides the general targeting rules for spells, so some folks here say it doesn't
dimension door allows to you visualize a target location, or pinpoint exact coordinates you're trying to get to. That makes cover all but irrelevant, but it also creates interesting possibilities (i.e. a player dimension dooring through a solid locked door assuming there's a floor on the other side...)
I know....and I allow it to bypass cover because I agree that the text infers a specific exception to targeting rules. I was just stating why others might not agree.
I wouldn't even describe it as an exception so much as an addition to the rules. You still can't target a location through cover, it's just that the cover becomes irrelevant.
To pick an analogy that brings things full circle, just because you can't take an opportunity attack against someone teleporting away from/into your range doesn't mean you can't attack them at all.
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)
The idea that you need continuous motion through contiguous locations in 3D space to define a path is where you're wrong.
You wanna revisit this idea?
That is exactly what a path is.
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.
Ok, what if the magical weave of the plane of existence one exist in is what a person travels though when teleporting?
if that possibility exist, then one would be "moving" though weave space using the "distance" given by the definition of teleporting magic, and imparting a instant "Teleportation speed of movement" that is instantly used up in teleporting.
Ok, what if the magical weave of the plane of existence one exist in is what a person travels though when teleporting?
if that possibility exist, then one would be "moving" though weave space using the "distance" given by the definition of teleporting magic, and imparting a instant "Teleportation speed of movement" that is instantly used up in teleporting.
You're free to homebrew an explanation like that for your games, totally. That sounds like really cool explanation for how it works in your campaign.
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.
Ok, what if the magical weave of the plane of existence one exist in is what a person travels though when teleporting?
if that possibility exist, then one would be "moving" though weave space using the "distance" given by the definition of teleporting magic, and imparting a instant "Teleportation speed of movement" that is instantly used up in teleporting.
You're free to homebrew an explanation like that for your games, totally. That sounds like really cool explanation for how it works in your campaign.
Read the full chapter 10 of the PHB. you'll see where the thought came from and would fit within the rules as written
The idea that you need continuous motion through contiguous locations in 3D space to define a path is where you're wrong.
You wanna revisit this idea?
That is exactly what a path is.
Nope. A path can be defined as a set of connected discrete points in space. In the same way that you can jump from stepping stone to stepping stone, and that forms a path, you can teleport from point to point and that will also form a path.
Ok, what if the magical weave of the plane of existence one exist in is what a person travels though when teleporting?
if that possibility exist, then one would be "moving" though weave space using the "distance" given by the definition of teleporting magic, and imparting a instant "Teleportation speed of movement" that is instantly used up in teleporting.
This is a good point and seemingly viable explanation following RAW (off the top of my head) that resonates somewhat with how I understand the weave to work.
The idea that you need continuous motion through contiguous locations in 3D space to define a path is where you're wrong.
You wanna revisit this idea?
That is exactly what a path is.
Nope. A path can be defined as a set of connected discrete points in space. In the same way that you can jump from stepping stone to stepping stone, and that forms a path, you can teleport from point to point and that will also form a path.
That's a rather esoteric definition, and one I'd love to see in a published dictionary.
But, to put it more concisely, instantaneous transportation is not a path.
The idea that you need continuous motion through contiguous locations in 3D space to define a path is where you're wrong.
You wanna revisit this idea?
That is exactly what a path is.
Nope. A path can be defined as a set of connected discrete points in space. In the same way that you can jump from stepping stone to stepping stone, and that forms a path, you can teleport from point to point and that will also form a path.
That's a rather esoteric definition, and one I'd love to see in a published dictionary.
But, to put it more concisely, instantaneous transportation is not a path.
Why not? Google (which cites the Oxford dictionary) has this as a definition of “path”
”the course or direction in which a person or thing is moving“
teleportation can be understood to have a direction (to point “x”) and a course (via teleportation) so why is it not a path? Why is it not “moving” from one point to another?
The idea that you need continuous motion through contiguous locations in 3D space to define a path is where you're wrong.
You wanna revisit this idea?
That is exactly what a path is.
Nope. A path can be defined as a set of connected discrete points in space. In the same way that you can jump from stepping stone to stepping stone, and that forms a path, you can teleport from point to point and that will also form a path.
That's a rather esoteric definition, and one I'd love to see in a published dictionary.
But, to put it more concisely, instantaneous transportation is not a path.
Why not? Google (which cites the Oxford dictionary) has this as a definition of “path”
”the course or direction in which a person or thing is moving“
teleportation can be understood to have a direction (to point “x”) and a course (via teleportation) so why is it not a path? Why is it not “moving” from one point to another?
Here is the issue.
Teleportation is going from A to B without going through the spaces between them. Your "path" is drawn through the spaces between them. That is exactly where we know they didn't go. They were never on that line. Ever. That isn't their path.
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 idea that you need continuous motion through contiguous locations in 3D space to define a path is where you're wrong.
You wanna revisit this idea?
That is exactly what a path is.
Nope. A path can be defined as a set of connected discrete points in space. In the same way that you can jump from stepping stone to stepping stone, and that forms a path, you can teleport from point to point and that will also form a path.
That's a rather esoteric definition, and one I'd love to see in a published dictionary.
But, to put it more concisely, instantaneous transportation is not a path.
It's a definition more familiar to people in computer sciences, I'll admit. A Path through a graph or network, for example. Regardless of the definition of path, the actual question is "How far did he move?" Rav insists that this requires a path through 3d space, but I see nothing in the question that requires it. At moment 1, you're at point A, at moment 2, you're at point B. Distance traveled is the distance between Point A and B. Velocity is unimportant. Path isn't important. Rav extrapolates this to mean something like calculating displacement, but this is a strawman and never something that I've argued. It doesn't follow from my argument either. It's either willful misrepresentation or a woeful lack of understanding.
I admit, I am muddying the discussion by being drawn into a discussion of paths through higher order dimensions and how it's only the 3d projection that is relevant. I realize it's making it seem like a path is required. It isn't.
Only the 3D distance between your locations in space is required to answer the question "How far did he move?"
The idea that you need continuous motion through contiguous locations in 3D space to define a path is where you're wrong.
You wanna revisit this idea?
That is exactly what a path is.
Nope. A path can be defined as a set of connected discrete points in space. In the same way that you can jump from stepping stone to stepping stone, and that forms a path, you can teleport from point to point and that will also form a path.
That's a rather esoteric definition, and one I'd love to see in a published dictionary.
But, to put it more concisely, instantaneous transportation is not a path.
Why not? Google (which cites the Oxford dictionary) has this as a definition of “path”
”the course or direction in which a person or thing is moving“
teleportation can be understood to have a direction (to point “x”) and a course (via teleportation) so why is it not a path? Why is it not “moving” from one point to another?
Here is the issue.
Teleportation is going from A to B without going through the spaces between them. Your "path" is drawn through the spaces between them. That is exactly where we know they didn't go. They were never on that line. Ever. That isn't their path.
1) teleportation is not defined in the rules, so any definition of teleportation is going to be from the person interpreting the rules, ie not RAW
2) teleportation can be travel through that space, just in a manner that is 1) instantaneous and 2) protected from all outside influence. Functionally, would you be able to tell the difference? Does this description not meet the stated rule of “instantly transported” that is found in some examples of teleportation?
As I said, it's esoteric. Chiefly because this is not how anyone else uses these terms.
Please, explain to everyone here, as if we were children, how instantaneous transportation has a course or path.
I cast a teleportation spell, let’s say Dimension Door. I specify travel 200 feet north and 50 feet down. Have I not set both direction and course (by defining distance), can’t all teleportation do the same thing by selecting a location? The path is set by those metrics. The means of travel is instant but it follows the path set. You can also look at my most recent post before this for a means by which teleportation could be described that would change nothing from outside observation and meet the self description in a number of spells and effects
by the way Dimension Door should have it's Range in it's header changed to 5ft as the spell by it's definition targets "Yourself" and or a "willing" creature 5 ft from you.
Guess the Dev team at WOTC missed that.
No, by definition, it targets the destination. Because the spell's range is 500 feet, and spells are defined such that a spell's range is the range to "the" target. Now, you and I both know the spell has to, in some sense, "target" both - that is, it's well-defined to discuss who or what is teleported, just as it's well-defined to discuss where the teleport is going. But the by definition target of Dimension Door is the destination, not the teleported entities, which is highly relevant for many things, including interactions with metamagic.
and who is to say that those spells weren't derived by some some wizard who developed the teleport spell?
That wizard is Jeremy Crawford (and team), who wrote the rules. the PHB/DMG/MM are not written by in-universe beings.
hahahahaha. no
Jeremy Crawford didn't come up with the teleport spell my dude rofl.
Who did then? (and remember we are talking 5e rules, Gary Gygax or anyone associated with earlier editions is not an acceptable answer).
Oberon!
Found him.
Oberon was credited with many of the spells associated with teleportation and planar travel, such as banishment, blink, dimension door, telekinesis, and teleport, among others.
This was long before Crawford. And this isn't about rules, if you're discussing which wizard created which spells, in-game, that is narrative lore nor rules.
The reason is because in-game most of the spells we know have had their name's reduced to shorthand versions over time, but many of them were originally developed by specific named wizards at some point, and were often named after those people. Melf's Acid Arrow eventually just being Acid Arrow as the memory of the original creator of the spell fades further from the collective consciousness of the spellcasters who learn these spells generation after generation. This has happened many times. With many spells.
Apparently, even with Teleport. Because it was credited to a one Oberon, who specialized in inter-dimensional and teleportation magics and was a pioneer in their arts. Long.... long.... loooong ago.
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 post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I trust you've heard of an analogy ?
Sigh. You cannot measure his 3D-path when he teleports. But that doesn't matter. The distance he traveled in that instant is the distance between those two points. It's not some arbitrary set of other points. It's just those two points.
You keep saying to "measure the actual path" and then, "It's 0 feet". It's patently not 0 feet, since that requires the two points to be connected in 3D space. And they are not. I get that you're arguing that he doesn't physically move through 3D space. And I get that you _could_ argue that some sort of space-time warping allows him to move between those two points without "moving", but I'm saying that none of that is important. Only the distance moved as measured between discrete locations in 3D space is relevant. The idea that you need continuous motion through contiguous locations in 3D space to define a path is where you're wrong.
Back to the 2D analogy. If you leave the 2D plane and fly and then rejoin it, the 2D points are not connected. Your argument says that the person moved 0 feet in the 2D plane. This is incorrect.
Now, moving up to 3D. (still with me?)
When you "leave the 3 dimensions of space" by teleporting, you are no longer "projecting" into 3D. You don't leave a path in the 3D projection. When you arrive in your new location, it's the same idea as when the person was flying above the 2D space. The 2D projection doesn't know about 3D. the 3D projection doesn't care about higher dimensions.
The measurement of the path in 3D space is the distance between the two points. That's how far you've "moved" by any measure that we care about. The idea that you can move through physically less space (by bending space/time or whatever) is irrelevant to the measurement of how far you've moved in 3D space.
We've moved from the 2D analogy into 3D now. Please try to keep up.
Sigh. Ok. His path passes through a myriad of higher dimensions, and a thousand years of horrors are visited upon his soul, but all memory of it is wiped from his mind. His body and very essence are wiped from reality and recreated by a vengeful cosmic entity from beyond time itself, who then returns it, completely unaware, to his intended destination, a mere moment after he left.
How far did he travel?
30 feet, fer cryin' out loud.
^ lol. and yes (just to back you up here).
I wouldn't even describe it as an exception so much as an addition to the rules. You still can't target a location through cover, it's just that the cover becomes irrelevant.
To pick an analogy that brings things full circle, just because you can't take an opportunity attack against someone teleporting away from/into your range doesn't mean you can't attack them at all.
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)
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, what if the magical weave of the plane of existence one exist in is what a person travels though when teleporting?
if that possibility exist, then one would be "moving" though weave space using the "distance" given by the definition of teleporting magic, and imparting a instant "Teleportation speed of movement" that is instantly used up in teleporting.
You're free to homebrew an explanation like that for your games, totally. That sounds like really cool explanation for how it works in your campaign.
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.
Read the full chapter 10 of the PHB. you'll see where the thought came from and would fit within the rules as written
Nope. A path can be defined as a set of connected discrete points in space. In the same way that you can jump from stepping stone to stepping stone, and that forms a path, you can teleport from point to point and that will also form a path.
This is a good point and seemingly viable explanation following RAW (off the top of my head) that resonates somewhat with how I understand the weave to work.
That's a rather esoteric definition, and one I'd love to see in a published dictionary.
But, to put it more concisely, instantaneous transportation is not a path.
As Fizban always says, the shortest path between two points is two points!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Why not? Google (which cites the Oxford dictionary) has this as a definition of “path”
”the course or direction in which a person or thing is moving“
teleportation can be understood to have a direction (to point “x”) and a course (via teleportation) so why is it not a path? Why is it not “moving” from one point to another?
Here is the issue.
Teleportation is going from A to B without going through the spaces between them. Your "path" is drawn through the spaces between them. That is exactly where we know they didn't go. They were never on that line. Ever. That isn't their path.
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.
It's a definition more familiar to people in computer sciences, I'll admit. A Path through a graph or network, for example.
Regardless of the definition of path, the actual question is "How far did he move?"
Rav insists that this requires a path through 3d space, but I see nothing in the question that requires it. At moment 1, you're at point A, at moment 2, you're at point B. Distance traveled is the distance between Point A and B. Velocity is unimportant. Path isn't important.
Rav extrapolates this to mean something like calculating displacement, but this is a strawman and never something that I've argued. It doesn't follow from my argument either. It's either willful misrepresentation or a woeful lack of understanding.
I admit, I am muddying the discussion by being drawn into a discussion of paths through higher order dimensions and how it's only the 3d projection that is relevant. I realize it's making it seem like a path is required. It isn't.
Only the 3D distance between your locations in space is required to answer the question "How far did he move?"
As I said, it's esoteric. Chiefly because this is not how anyone else uses these terms.
Please, explain to everyone here, as if we were children, how instantaneous transportation has a course or path.
1) teleportation is not defined in the rules, so any definition of teleportation is going to be from the person interpreting the rules, ie not RAW
2) teleportation can be travel through that space, just in a manner that is 1) instantaneous and 2) protected from all outside influence. Functionally, would you be able to tell the difference? Does this description not meet the stated rule of “instantly transported” that is found in some examples of teleportation?
Please explain why you think a path is required to calculate the distance between two points?
More explicitly -- why do you think that someone being at point A, and then at point B, has not moved.
I cast a teleportation spell, let’s say Dimension Door. I specify travel 200 feet north and 50 feet down. Have I not set both direction and course (by defining distance), can’t all teleportation do the same thing by selecting a location? The path is set by those metrics. The means of travel is instant but it follows the path set. You can also look at my most recent post before this for a means by which teleportation could be described that would change nothing from outside observation and meet the self description in a number of spells and effects
No, by definition, it targets the destination. Because the spell's range is 500 feet, and spells are defined such that a spell's range is the range to "the" target. Now, you and I both know the spell has to, in some sense, "target" both - that is, it's well-defined to discuss who or what is teleported, just as it's well-defined to discuss where the teleport is going. But the by definition target of Dimension Door is the destination, not the teleported entities, which is highly relevant for many things, including interactions with metamagic.
Oberon!
Found him.
Oberon was credited with many of the spells associated with teleportation and planar travel, such as banishment, blink, dimension door, telekinesis, and teleport, among others.
This was long before Crawford. And this isn't about rules, if you're discussing which wizard created which spells, in-game, that is narrative lore nor rules.
The reason is because in-game most of the spells we know have had their name's reduced to shorthand versions over time, but many of them were originally developed by specific named wizards at some point, and were often named after those people. Melf's Acid Arrow eventually just being Acid Arrow as the memory of the original creator of the spell fades further from the collective consciousness of the spellcasters who learn these spells generation after generation. This has happened many times. With many spells.
Apparently, even with Teleport. Because it was credited to a one Oberon, who specialized in inter-dimensional and teleportation magics and was a pioneer in their arts. Long.... long.... loooong ago.
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.