Maybe stop arguing with people about what 'plain English' means when you can't even use fairly basic words like 'concept' correctly.
EDIT: For that matter, who cares whether it's a "real process" or not? This is D&D. A djinn moving thousands of miles, or a magic helmet taking you where you want to go, is a more relevant example to the discussion anyway.
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)
So when you cast misty step, that relies on the spell teleport? I don't think so. I'm done here, I've learned that engaging in this type of bad, time wasting argumentation is just annoying.
You can either accept the definition, as given by the spell teleport, or accept that there is no definition. Because the rulebook doesn't define teleportation anywhere else.
And, let's be honest, you'll be back. This is the 4th time this week you've tried, and failed, to quit these discussions.
Yeah, if your position is that Teleportation isn't defined in the game then we'd need to use the real world example of teleportation because that's how it really works. Kotath is right in that the way teleportation actually works in real life is by quantum entangling particles. This causes anything done to one particle to also happen to the other regardless of the distance between them. This type of teleportation doesn't transmit matter, only information. So if you wanted to teleport a person with the type of teleportation that exists in real life, you'd need to essentially rebuild them particle by particle, atom by atom, every connection remade from scratch with information of the configuration being transmitted via said entanglement.
So, if your argument is that teleport isn't defined we'd need to use that real world process. And, every time your character teleports they are unmade... and a new version of you is made at the destination with that information. The new you comes into being there in the new space, having never actually been anywhere, simply a perfect copy of the old you that now is lost forever.
So, you vanish. And, then you appear.
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.
I'm not even going to touch the bulk of wild misconceptions swirling around quantum teleportation.
Bottom line, there is no real world equivalent to spontaneous transit from one location to another previously uninteracted location. Even quantum teleportation of information requires sub-light shipping of particles.
Comparing Quantum Teleportation to the common meaning of teleportation is like comparing milking an almond to milking a cow.
Yeah, if your position is that Teleportation isn't defined in the game then we'd need to use the real world example of teleportation because that's how it really works. Kotath is right in that the way teleportation actually works in real life is by quantum entangling particles. This causes anything done to one particle to also happen to the other regardless of the distance between them. This type of teleportation doesn't transmit matter, only information. So if you wanted to teleport a person with the type of teleportation that exists in real life, you'd need to essentially rebuild them particle by particle, atom by atom, every connection remade from scratch with information of the configuration being transmitted via said entanglement.
So, if your argument is that teleport isn't defined we'd need to use that real world process. And, every time your character teleports they are unmade... and a new version of you is made at the destination with that information. The new you comes into being there in the new space, having never actually been anywhere, simply a perfect copy of the old you that now is lost forever.
So, you vanish. And, then you appear.
Except there are plenty of fictional precedents that are equally valid and don't require a degree in theoretical physics to understand. those include science fiction, yes, but also fantasy (which would honestly be a closer analogue to D&D since it usually has a fantasy theme and not a science fiction one; remember, in a world where magic exists and worlds aren't necessarily round, physics may not exist or may work extremely differently; a favorite example of mine is Discworld, where the speed of light is 600 mph (and the world is a flat disc on the backs of 4 elephants on the back of a giant space turtle), and religion (miraculous transportation depicted in the bible and jewish mysticism and in catholic traditions regarding some of the saints, Buddha crossing a flooded river with 1250 of his disciples in the blink of an eye, etc).
Examples of teleportation in Fantasy:
Harry Potter: Apparition, Portkeys and Floo Networks. The former works like traditional teleportation, and in the films is depicted as the caster swirling into nothing, and then cycling in reverse in the new location, and from the casters perspective appear to be turning, swirling, and stretching into the new spot. The middle and latter options work more like portals, connecting two distinct points, and are depicted as extremely fast travel through some sort of undefined space, which is invisible and un-interactible for anyone outside the teleport
Discworld: Characters in this series who can "teleport" do so because time does not work the same way for them, or they can manipulate it to travel extremely quickly to the point of it seeming like they just vanish and appear to the outside observer. DEATH and his friends and minions, and several monks in the Thief of Time book, can do this.
X-men: Nightcrawler teleports by shunting himself through an alternate dimension, appearing to instantly travel from point to point in the outside world while actually travelling through the alternate dimension to get there.
There are lots of others, going back to 1001 Arabian Nights to Wagner (both mentioned previously).
In summary, there is no rule, nor convention, that requires you to use the science fiction or IRL physics version of teleportation (or any other effect) when the game rules don't give you another definition, and there are lots of options for visualizing teleportation from a wealth of other sources beyond science fiction and IRL physics
I'm not even going to touch the bulk of wild misconceptions swirling around quantum teleportation.
Bottom line, there is no real world equivalent to spontaneous transit from one location to another previously uninteracted location. Even quantum teleportation of information requires sub-light shipping of particles.
Comparing Quantum Teleportation to the common meaning of teleportation is like comparing milking an almond to milking a cow.
The "common meaning" of teleportation uses precisely which mechanical process to perform the act it describes? Or.. maybe, that is outside the scope of a "common meaning"? So the scientific real process isn't good enough or you. The game rules provided definitions are insufficient for you. And only a nebulous "common meaning" version that you can simply claim means whatever you want it to at any time is valid. For... reasons?
Why are we not using the game's provided text to determine what teleport means??? Not seen what the rules say? Just look:
Any creature that enters the portal instantly appears within 5 feet of the destination circle or in the nearest unoccupied space if that space is occupied.
From teleportation Circle, you instantly appear.
The item instantly appears in your hand regardless of physical or planar distances, and the spell ends.
From Instant Summons, the it instantly appears.
You can specify a target destination in general terms, such as the City of Brass on the Elemental Plane of Fire or the palace of Dispater on the second level of the Nine Hells, and you appear in or near that destination.
...
If the teleportation circle is too small to hold all the creatures you transported, they appear in the closest unoccupied spaces next to the circle.
Plane Shift says: You appear.
You and your group (or the target object) appear where you want to.
...
You and your group (or the target object) appear a random distance away from the destination in a random direction.
^ This here is from the mack daddy teleport spell itself. Teleport: You appear.
You appear in a spot of your choice within 5 feet of the destination tree, using another 5 feet of movement. If you have no movement left, you appear within 5 feet of the tree you entered.
Tree Stride? You appear.
You and any creatures that teleport with you appear in the nearest unoccupied space to the spot you designated when you prepared your sanctuary (see below).
Word of Recall? Did you guess "You Appear"? Because...
Just use the context clues here. The game is not being subtle. When you teleport... "you appear" in the unoccupied space of your destination.
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.
Yeah, if your position is that Teleportation isn't defined in the game then we'd need to use the real world example of teleportation because that's how it really works. Kotath is right in that the way teleportation actually works in real life is by quantum entangling particles. This causes anything done to one particle to also happen to the other regardless of the distance between them. This type of teleportation doesn't transmit matter, only information. So if you wanted to teleport a person with the type of teleportation that exists in real life, you'd need to essentially rebuild them particle by particle, atom by atom, every connection remade from scratch with information of the configuration being transmitted via said entanglement.
So, if your argument is that teleport isn't defined we'd need to use that real world process. And, every time your character teleports they are unmade... and a new version of you is made at the destination with that information. The new you comes into being there in the new space, having never actually been anywhere, simply a perfect copy of the old you that now is lost forever.
So, you vanish. And, then you appear.
Except there are plenty of fictional precedents that are equally valid and don't require a degree in theoretical physics to understand. those include science fiction, yes, but also fantasy (which would honestly be a closer analogue to D&D since it usually has a fantasy theme and not a science fiction one; remember, in a world where magic exists and worlds aren't necessarily round, physics may not exist or may work extremely differently; a favorite example of mine is Discworld, where the speed of light is 600 mph (and the world is a flat disc on the backs of 4 elephants on the back of a giant space turtle), and religion (miraculous transportation depicted in the bible and jewish mysticism and in catholic traditions regarding some of the saints, Buddha crossing a flooded river with 1250 of his disciples in the blink of an eye, etc).
Examples of teleportation in Fantasy:
Harry Potter: Apparition, Portkeys and Floo Networks. The former works like traditional teleportation, and in the films is depicted as the caster swirling into nothing, and then cycling in reverse in the new location, and from the casters perspective appear to be turning, swirling, and stretching into the new spot. The middle and latter options work more like portals, connecting two distinct points, and are depicted as extremely fast travel through some sort of undefined space, which is invisible and un-interactible for anyone outside the teleport
Discworld: Characters in this series who can "teleport" do so because time does not work the same way for them, or they can manipulate it to travel extremely quickly to the point of it seeming like they just vanish and appear to the outside observer. DEATH and his friends and minions, and several monks in the Thief of Time book, can do this.
X-men: Nightcrawler teleports by shunting himself through an alternate dimension, appearing to instantly travel from point to point in the outside world while actually travelling through the alternate dimension to get there.
There are lots of others, going back to 1001 Arabian Nights to Wagner (both mentioned previously).
In summary, there is no rule, nor convention, that requires you to use the science fiction or IRL physics version of teleportation (or any other effect) when the game rules don't give you another definition, and there are lots of options for visualizing teleportation from a wealth of other sources beyond science fiction and IRL physics
I don't think we should use that science-y definition. I started that post you're quoting with "Yeah, if your position is" So, clearly not my position. My position is above this post. We should use the text of the books to solve the grand mystery of "what does teleportation mean in D&D" Novel approach, I know. Use the rulebooks!? Eww. But, It's how I do it. That's my position.
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.
From what I understand, the moderators don't get involved in discussions like this. But they should.
Nothing does more disservice to new DM's, new players unfamiliar with the rules, and the D&D community at large, than threads like this that are spreading outright disinformation that is then spread to who knows how many tables. It only takes a very few vocal and dedicated people, who are utterly and completely wrong on a topic, to poison a well.
It is one thing to allow debate some nebulous topic, or some theme. It is quite another to allow "debate" about something so entrenched in canon. I know some will call that "gate-keeping". Others call it maintaining credibility on a site that supposedly tries to provide a quality service to the D&D community writ large.
Preach!
The game engine doesn't care about the science or physics behind teleportation. Any foray into that topic is like stepping into a fishing barge full of red herrings. It's all one big distraction. It's not relevant to understanding how the rules are written to interact with one another.
The question is whether teleportation is considered Movement. Movement has an expressed definition in the rules. When a character utilizes their Movement, they deduct that from their Speed. Some conditions, like moving over difficult terrain and crawling while prone, can cause you to expend more Speed than normal. And if you have more than one Speed, then you can choose which one you use.
Now, we can argue till Armageddon whether or not teleportation counts as moving, and I don't believe it is, but it's not Movement.
@Ravnodaus, You seem to have mistaken me for someone else. I'm not involved in the ongoing disagreement. I've already made my position clear, as well as the primary justification for such. I was only griping about people unnecessarily complicating issues by bringing in theories that are already poorly understood.
@Kotath, the information isn't "moving". Quantum teleportation is spontaneous acquisition of knowledge about a quantum state of a remote particle. Energy/matter is conserved, information* is propogated. Like taking two shuffled playing cards and separating them, by flipping yours, you instantly know what the other person has.
My other major gripe is "Holograms". Star Wars features 3D Projections, Credit Cards feature holograms. Language evolves, so it's not worth getting tied in knots about it, but when terms with the same name get conflated as being equivalent, it causes communication issues.
Edit: At a certain level, Science becomes philosophy, and that comes with a whole new vocabulary and set of assumptions, or lack thereof.
@Ravnodaus, You seem to have mistaken me for someone else. I'm not involved in the ongoing disagreement. I've already made my position clear, as well as the primary justification for such. I was only griping about people unnecessarily complicating issues by bringing in theories that are already poorly understood.
I rarely intend to speak directly to someone. I'll try to be clearer when I mean you in the sense of "you all" vs "you specifically memnosyne". I quoted something you said and then started ranting at the clouds, not you specifically. I'll use "yall" I think, in those cases.
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.
"Y'all" and similar pronoun variants will likely end up with the same result, due to implying inclusion, and being inherently aggressive. (Western languages are particularly subject oriented. There is a neat podcast on the topic.) A quick disclaimer after quoting someone is probably most effective.
Either way, it seems pretty clear that opinions are pretty well entrenched at this point. Either the designers intents are made clear enough with the existing rule sets, or there is enough flexibility in the narrative description of teleportation to give the DM justification for choosing what is best for their game.
Regardless of the "truth", each ruling has consequences, and the most basic "Truth" is that the game designers mean to create a reasonably balanced experience. If letting teleportation bypass certain effects based on movement meaningfully changes the "Meta", then that is probably the wrong interpretation, though DMs are always welcome to, and often do, voluntarily unbalance their own games.
Harry Potter: Apparition, Portkeys and Floo Networks. The former works like traditional teleportation, and in the films is depicted as the caster swirling into nothing, and then cycling in reverse in the new location, and from the casters perspective appear to be turning, swirling, and stretching into the new spot. The middle and latter options work more like portals, connecting two distinct points, and are depicted as extremely fast travel through some sort of undefined space, which is invisible and un-interactible for anyone outside the teleport
Discworld: Characters in this series who can "teleport" do so because time does not work the same way for them, or they can manipulate it to travel extremely quickly to the point of it seeming like they just vanish and appear to the outside observer. DEATH and his friends and minions, and several monks in the Thief of Time book, can do this.
X-men: Nightcrawler teleports by shunting himself through an alternate dimension, appearing to instantly travel from point to point in the outside world while actually travelling through the alternate dimension to get there.
There are lots of others, going back to 1001 Arabian Nights to Wagner (both mentioned previously).
In summary, there is no rule, nor convention, that requires you to use the science fiction or IRL physics version of teleportation (or any other effect) when the game rules don't give you another definition, and there are lots of options for visualizing teleportation from a wealth of other sources beyond science fiction and IRL physics
But other than Discworld's method, which is very problematic (why not fight at that speed? What happens if you throw something while en route ? Not sure who would say that was really teleporting), aren't all those not moving? Or at least, not moving in normal space?
Discworld in particular is (intentionally) problematic, by design, because it is absurdist fantasy fiction (akin somewhat to what Douglas Adams does with Sci-Fi in the Hitchhiker's series). but to answer your real question. I would say that all of these are "moving" which is why I specifically included them:
As depicted by the films at least, the HP teleports appear to show "travel" whether that is through "real"-space or an undefined "magic"-space. The effect certainly looks like motion or moving, even if they aren't shown crossing the actual area traversed from outside observation (this is particularly notable for floo-network and portkey travel)
The Discworld version are traversing real space, just too fast for anyone else to react. the only exception would be DEATH traveling to and from his domain, which would be more akin to plane shifting than teleportation if translated to D&D
Nightcrawler specifically travels through an alternate dimension, which infers movement, just not in real-space. His movement actually takes exertion (and can cause him to become exausted), which might imply a use of speed if it were translated into D&D.
I will say that none of these have to be "the" definition of teleport for anything but themselves. The point was to show that there are multiple precedents DMs can draw on. I've stated my personal opinion very early on in this thread, but I'll reiterate: Teleportation is not "movement" (which uses or relates to a speed), but it is "moving" (akin to being on a ship or carriage in motion, falling, or being pulled by a spell/effect) and would cause you to "enter" an AoE if you appeared inside one.
Let's see if I can do it in a way that isn't biased. Please do point out where I misrepresent the different arguments. In this post, I'm trying to capture the essence without applying my own judgements. Not all arguments on either side are necessarily held by all proponents of that side. I'll also mix in some arguments from the Booming Blade thread, since this thread emerged from that one. Some of these arguments might not have any remaining proponents, and do please suggest arguments that I've omitted.
The AGAINST position(s): (Teleport is not movement)
Evidence:
Teleport is not a listed Movement Type. No creatures have a Teleport Speed.
Some specific rules call out teleport as special (Opportunity attacks mention Teleport specifically).
Teleport spell descriptions don't say "move" or "movement", only "vanish" and "appear" or similar.
Some rules seem to ignore Teleport when talking about movement:
e.g. Feline Agility is worded to recharge on "move 0 feet", but making teleport interrupt it seems silly.
Some Arguments/Statements.
To be "movement" it has to be a Movement Type and/or use a Speed. Teleport is neither.
The concept of "moving" implies a continuous change in position through space (i.e. "following a path").
Instantaneous transport between points is therefore not "moving" between them.
Alternatively, Teleportation might be "moving", but the distance actually moved is 0 feet.
Teleport might move you, but it isn't "willing"
The magic takes over after you cast it, and you are no longer in control of your location.
Teleporting isn't moving, because it leads to absurdities like taking damage from Area spells that inflict damage when "moving through" them.
The FOR positions (Teleport is movement)
Evidence:
Some spells/effects refer to teleport in the context of moving. (e.g. Arcane Archers Grasping Arrow feature)
Some spells refer to teleport in the context of entering an area (Magic Circle etc)
Opportunity Attack calls out teleport as a special exemption to "moving out of the threatened area".
Arguments/Statements:
5e rules try to avoid using highly restrictive terminology, favoring plain meanings where possible.
This is tricky because it can be hard to identify the times where a more narrow meaning should be used.
Movement is referred to somewhat restrictively in the section on actions in combat, but more broadly in the PHB in sections on moving overland and adventuring.
Edited to add: by "restrictive" I mean "in a more formal manner, with specific wording on how much speed you use and how to count it each round".
The combat rules on "Movement" are not exhaustive on what is movement and moving. They describe the ways to adjudicate moving your character using movement speed, but are not the only things that constituted movement (for example, overland doesn't use those rules).
Edit: by "doesn't use those rules", I mean the formal turn-by-turn instructions on counting squares/feet. It uses less formal and more general wording using plain language.
If you start at position A and then appear at position B, you have moved by a normal understanding of the words.
One ought to calculate the distance moved as the distance between the two points A and B.
Choosing a different method for calculating the distance makes for clunky game mechanics. It relies on unknowable special effects to make the decision of how far you traveled depending on which flavor of teleport you prefer.
I think that's about where we're at. As I said - feel free to correct or add to this. (Edit -- added Feline Agility example, clarification on the "restrictive" vs "permissive" movement sections in the PHB)
Good catch on Grasping Arrow, but I'd strike magic circle entirely. It doesn't include the word move anywhere in the description.
I'd also like to add that creatures who teleport do not provoke Opportunity Attacks. As I see it, there are two ways to read this rule:
The teleporting creature does move out of another creature's reach, but a specific exception is carved out for teleportation in the second paragraph.
The teleporting creature isn't considered to move (out of another creature's reach) at all, and the second paragraph is explaining why; as a point of clarification.
And, if I may, I'd like to pose a hypothetical: a Tabaxi spellcaster with access to teleportation magic (e.g. dimension door, misty step, or thunder step).
Feline Agility
Your reflexes and agility allow you to move with a burst of speed. When you move on your turn in combat, you can double your speed until the end of the turn. Once you use this trait, you can’t use it again until you move 0 feet on one of your turns.
If one uses this to double their speed for a turn and move 60 feet, does teleportation still count as moving for the purposes of letting this recharge? Must they remain stationary for an entire turn? Or is the lack of physical exertion enough to allow the trait to recharge?
Good catch on Grasping Arrow, but I'd strike magic circle entirely. It doesn't include the word move anywhere in the description.
I'd also like to add that creatures who teleport do not provoke Opportunity Attacks. As I see it, there are two ways to read this rule:
The teleporting creature does move out of another creature's reach, but a specific exception is carved out for teleportation in the second paragraph.
The teleporting creature isn't considered to move (out of another creature's reach) at all, and the second paragraph is explaining why; as a point of clarification.
And, if I may, I'd like to pose a hypothetical: a Tabaxi spellcaster with access to teleportation magic (e.g. dimension door, misty step, or thunder step).
Feline Agility
Your reflexes and agility allow you to move with a burst of speed. When you move on your turn in combat, you can double your speed until the end of the turn. Once you use this trait, you can’t use it again until you move 0 feet on one of your turns.
If one uses this to double their speed for a turn and move 60 feet, does teleportation still count as moving for the purposes of letting this recharge? Must they remain stationary for an entire turn? Or is the lack of physical exertion enough to allow the trait to recharge?
As for OA I would contend #1, as for the Feline Agility teleporting on the recharge turn would not allow the recharge, and would mean you do have to remain stationary for the entire turn to regain the trait.
The 3rd option is that Teleportation is movement, but has a "Not Applicable" distance value, so it would satisfy "move 0", as opposed to "doesn't move".
Good catch on Grasping Arrow, but I'd strike magic circle entirely. It doesn't include the word move anywhere in the description.
Fair enough. It came up, I believe, in the context of "entering an area" (the original context of this thread) so I've included it for reference.
I'd also like to add that creatures who teleport do not provoke Opportunity Attacks. As I see it, there are two ways to read this rule:
The teleporting creature does move out of another creature's reach, but a specific exception is carved out for teleportation in the second paragraph.
The teleporting creature isn't considered to move (out of another creature's reach) at all, and the second paragraph is explaining why; as a point of clarification.
Agreed. That's why I mentioned it in both sections as "evidence" for the respective positions. I can read it in either way. Initially I read it the 2nd way, but on a closer read, I think they meant it in the first way. IMO.
And, if I may, I'd like to pose a hypothetical: a Tabaxi spellcaster with access to teleportation magic (e.g. dimension door, misty step, or thunder step).
Feline Agility
Your reflexes and agility allow you to move with a burst of speed. When you move on your turn in combat, you can double your speed until the end of the turn. Once you use this trait, you can’t use it again until you move 0 feet on one of your turns.
If one uses this to double their speed for a turn and move 60 feet, does teleportation still count as moving for the purposes of letting this recharge? Must they remain stationary for an entire turn? Or is the lack of physical exertion enough to allow the trait to recharge?
Ooohhh. That's a good one. My gut feeling says that this is in the context of physical exertion, so I'd interpret the "move 0 feet" in this ability as "using 0 feet of your movement speeds" rather than "remaining stationary". However, I don't think most rules are written with teleport held in mind by the designers. This feature suffers from that problem. To my mind, it should call out "except by teleport" if that shouldn't count as moving for the purposes of this power. That would certainly clarify it for me. But I agree, this feature seems to be about physical exertion, and it does look like evidence that at least the designers of this feature didn't think of teleport as counting as movement.
Let's see if I can do it in a way that isn't biased. Please do point out where I misrepresent the different arguments. In this post, I'm trying to capture the essence without applying my own judgements. Not all arguments on either side are necessarily held by all proponents of that side. I'll also mix in some arguments from the Booming Blade thread, since this thread emerged from that one. Some of these arguments might not have any remaining proponents, and do please suggest arguments that I've omitted.
The AGAINST position(s): (Teleport is not movement)
Evidence:
Teleport is not a listed Movement Type. No creatures have a Teleport Speed.
Some specific rules call out teleport as special (Opportunity attacks mention Teleport specifically).
Some Arguments/Statements.
To be "movement" it has to be a Movement Type and/or use a Speed. Teleport is neither.
The concept of "moving" implies a continuous change in position through space (i.e. "following a path").
Instantaneous transport between points is therefore not "moving" between them.
Alternatively, Teleportation might be "moving", but the distance actually moved is 0 feet.
Teleport might move you, but it isn't "willing"
The magic takes over after you cast it, and you are no longer in control of your location.
Teleporting isn't moving, because it leads to absurdities like taking damage from Area spells that inflict damage when "moving through" them.
I'd add as evidence: that a literal reading of every teleport effect shows they don't call themselves movement or moving. They either say 'teleport' (mostly from more recently released sources) just generally or instead use terms like "instantaneously appear" for their listed effect.
The FOR positions (Teleport is movement)
Evidence:
Some spells/effects refer to teleport in the context of moving. (e.g. Arcane Archers Grasping Arrow feature, Magic Circle etc)
That is strictly and provably false. Magic Circle never once uses the words Move, Movement, Moving.
Opportunity Attack calls out teleport as a special exemption to "moving out of the threatened area".
Arguments/Statements:
5e rules try to avoid using highly restrictive terminology, favoring plain meanings where possible.
This is tricky because it can be hard to identify the times where a more narrow meaning should be used.
Movement is referred to somewhat restrictively in the section on actions in combat, but more broadly in the PHB in sections on moving overland and adventuring.
The combat rules on "Movement" are not exhaustive on what is movement and moving. They describe the ways to adjudicate moving your character using movement speed, but are not the only things that constituted movement (for example, overland doesn't use those rules).
Overland movement is still accomplished with your available movement type and it isn't talking broadly at all... walking, jumping, climbing, swimming, flying, crawling, burrowing. Is there some other means of movement the rules discuss and that yall use? I don't know of any. Can yall fly around when traveling overland even if yall don't have a fly speed? No. Overland travel still uses movement types and movement rules. There is a serious misconception going on if yall think normal movement rules don't apply simply because you're not in combat. Yes, it abstracts this process out to larger distances and larger intervals of time, but it is still accomplishing all that movement with your character's available movement types and these rules are well explained.
If you start at position A and then appear at position B, you have moved by a normal understanding of the words.
One ought to calculate the distance moved as the distance between the two points A and B.
Choosing a different method for calculating the distance makes for clunky game mechanics. It relies on unknowable special effects to make the decision of how far you traveled depending on which flavor of teleport you prefer.
I think that's about where we're at. As I said - feel free to correct or add to this.
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'd add as evidence: that a literal reading of every teleport effect shows they don't call themselves movement or moving. They either say 'teleport' (mostly from more recently released sources) just generally or instead use terms like "instantaneously appear" for their listed effect.
I've added that. Good point.
The FOR positions (Teleport is movement)
Evidence:
Some spells/effects refer to teleport in the context of moving. (e.g. Arcane Archers Grasping Arrow feature, Magic Circle etc)
That is strictly and provably false. Magic Circle never once uses the words Move, Movement, Moving.
Ahh yes. Someone else also pointed this out. I was reading through the thread earlier and put this in from an early comment. I realize now it was in context of "entering an area" rather "moving". I've updated my earlier summary to mention that.
Overland movement is still accomplished with your available movement type and it isn't talking broadly at all... walking, jumping, climbing, swimming, flying, crawling, burrowing. Is there some other means of movement the rules discuss and that yall use? I don't know of any. Can yall fly around when traveling overland even if yall don't have a fly speed? No. Overland travel still uses movement types and movement rules. There is a serious misconception going on if yall think normal movement rules don't apply simply because you're not in combat. Yes, it abstracts this process out to larger distances and larger intervals of time, but it is still accomplishing all that movement with your character's available movement types and these rules are well explained.
Agreed -- I guess my point was more about how the rules tend to be permissive and general, rather than restrictive and specific (except when they want to be). The overland rules don't mention teleport. On the one hand one might argue that's because teleport isn't movement. On the other hand, one could argue that's because a Teleport spell just moves you past all the overland stuff and so there's no point in mentioning it in the section on overland travel ;)
Some spells/effects refer to teleport in the context of moving. (e.g. Arcane Archers Grasping Arrow feature, Magic Circle etc)
That is strictly and provably false. Magic Circle never once uses the words Move, Movement, Moving.
Ahh yes. Someone else also pointed this out. I was reading through the thread earlier and put this in from an early comment. I realize now it was in context of "entering an area" rather "moving". I've updated my earlier summary to mention that.
The three main textual references where teleportation is assumed to be a kind or method of moving are the rules for OAs where it is included as a specific exception along with forced movement, the rules for moving while prone where it states that the only way to move while prone is to crawl or teleport, and the spell Hallow where it can be used to prevent anyone from moving via teleportation or plane shifting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That isn't what you said.
Maybe stop arguing with people about what 'plain English' means when you can't even use fairly basic words like 'concept' correctly.
EDIT: For that matter, who cares whether it's a "real process" or not? This is D&D. A djinn moving thousands of miles, or a magic helmet taking you where you want to go, is a more relevant example to the discussion anyway.
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)
You can either accept the definition, as given by the spell teleport, or accept that there is no definition. Because the rulebook doesn't define teleportation anywhere else.
And, let's be honest, you'll be back. This is the 4th time this week you've tried, and failed, to quit these discussions.
Yeah, if your position is that Teleportation isn't defined in the game then we'd need to use the real world example of teleportation because that's how it really works. Kotath is right in that the way teleportation actually works in real life is by quantum entangling particles. This causes anything done to one particle to also happen to the other regardless of the distance between them. This type of teleportation doesn't transmit matter, only information. So if you wanted to teleport a person with the type of teleportation that exists in real life, you'd need to essentially rebuild them particle by particle, atom by atom, every connection remade from scratch with information of the configuration being transmitted via said entanglement.
So, if your argument is that teleport isn't defined we'd need to use that real world process. And, every time your character teleports they are unmade... and a new version of you is made at the destination with that information. The new you comes into being there in the new space, having never actually been anywhere, simply a perfect copy of the old you that now is lost forever.
So, you vanish. And, then you appear.
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.
[Furrows brows aggressively in Physics]
I'm not even going to touch the bulk of wild misconceptions swirling around quantum teleportation.
Bottom line, there is no real world equivalent to spontaneous transit from one location to another previously uninteracted location. Even quantum teleportation of information requires sub-light shipping of particles.
Comparing Quantum Teleportation to the common meaning of teleportation is like comparing milking an almond to milking a cow.
Except there are plenty of fictional precedents that are equally valid and don't require a degree in theoretical physics to understand. those include science fiction, yes, but also fantasy (which would honestly be a closer analogue to D&D since it usually has a fantasy theme and not a science fiction one; remember, in a world where magic exists and worlds aren't necessarily round, physics may not exist or may work extremely differently; a favorite example of mine is Discworld, where the speed of light is 600 mph (and the world is a flat disc on the backs of 4 elephants on the back of a giant space turtle), and religion (miraculous transportation depicted in the bible and jewish mysticism and in catholic traditions regarding some of the saints, Buddha crossing a flooded river with 1250 of his disciples in the blink of an eye, etc).
Examples of teleportation in Fantasy:
In summary, there is no rule, nor convention, that requires you to use the science fiction or IRL physics version of teleportation (or any other effect) when the game rules don't give you another definition, and there are lots of options for visualizing teleportation from a wealth of other sources beyond science fiction and IRL physics
The "common meaning" of teleportation uses precisely which mechanical process to perform the act it describes? Or.. maybe, that is outside the scope of a "common meaning"? So the scientific real process isn't good enough or you. The game rules provided definitions are insufficient for you. And only a nebulous "common meaning" version that you can simply claim means whatever you want it to at any time is valid. For... reasons?
Why are we not using the game's provided text to determine what teleport means??? Not seen what the rules say? Just look:
From teleportation Circle, you instantly appear.
From Instant Summons, the it instantly appears.
Plane Shift says: You appear.
^ This here is from the mack daddy teleport spell itself. Teleport: You appear.
Tree Stride? You appear.
Word of Recall? Did you guess "You Appear"? Because...
Just use the context clues here. The game is not being subtle. When you teleport... "you appear" in the unoccupied space of your destination.
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.
I don't think we should use that science-y definition. I started that post you're quoting with "Yeah, if your position is" So, clearly not my position. My position is above this post. We should use the text of the books to solve the grand mystery of "what does teleportation mean in D&D" Novel approach, I know. Use the rulebooks!? Eww. But, It's how I do it. That's my position.
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.
Preach!
The game engine doesn't care about the science or physics behind teleportation. Any foray into that topic is like stepping into a fishing barge full of red herrings. It's all one big distraction. It's not relevant to understanding how the rules are written to interact with one another.
The question is whether teleportation is considered Movement. Movement has an expressed definition in the rules. When a character utilizes their Movement, they deduct that from their Speed. Some conditions, like moving over difficult terrain and crawling while prone, can cause you to expend more Speed than normal. And if you have more than one Speed, then you can choose which one you use.
Now, we can argue till Armageddon whether or not teleportation counts as moving, and I don't believe it is, but it's not Movement.
@Ravnodaus, You seem to have mistaken me for someone else. I'm not involved in the ongoing disagreement. I've already made my position clear, as well as the primary justification for such. I was only griping about people unnecessarily complicating issues by bringing in theories that are already poorly understood.
@Kotath, the information isn't "moving". Quantum teleportation is spontaneous acquisition of knowledge about a quantum state of a remote particle. Energy/matter is conserved, information* is propogated. Like taking two shuffled playing cards and separating them, by flipping yours, you instantly know what the other person has.
My other major gripe is "Holograms". Star Wars features 3D Projections, Credit Cards feature holograms. Language evolves, so it's not worth getting tied in knots about it, but when terms with the same name get conflated as being equivalent, it causes communication issues.
Edit: At a certain level, Science becomes philosophy, and that comes with a whole new vocabulary and set of assumptions, or lack thereof.
I rarely intend to speak directly to someone. I'll try to be clearer when I mean you in the sense of "you all" vs "you specifically memnosyne". I quoted something you said and then started ranting at the clouds, not you specifically. I'll use "yall" I think, in those cases.
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.
"Y'all" and similar pronoun variants will likely end up with the same result, due to implying inclusion, and being inherently aggressive. (Western languages are particularly subject oriented. There is a neat podcast on the topic.) A quick disclaimer after quoting someone is probably most effective.
Either way, it seems pretty clear that opinions are pretty well entrenched at this point. Either the designers intents are made clear enough with the existing rule sets, or there is enough flexibility in the narrative description of teleportation to give the DM justification for choosing what is best for their game.
Regardless of the "truth", each ruling has consequences, and the most basic "Truth" is that the game designers mean to create a reasonably balanced experience. If letting teleportation bypass certain effects based on movement meaningfully changes the "Meta", then that is probably the wrong interpretation, though DMs are always welcome to, and often do, voluntarily unbalance their own games.
Discworld in particular is (intentionally) problematic, by design, because it is absurdist fantasy fiction (akin somewhat to what Douglas Adams does with Sci-Fi in the Hitchhiker's series). but to answer your real question. I would say that all of these are "moving" which is why I specifically included them:
I will say that none of these have to be "the" definition of teleport for anything but themselves. The point was to show that there are multiple precedents DMs can draw on. I've stated my personal opinion very early on in this thread, but I'll reiterate: Teleportation is not "movement" (which uses or relates to a speed), but it is "moving" (akin to being on a ship or carriage in motion, falling, or being pulled by a spell/effect) and would cause you to "enter" an AoE if you appeared inside one.
Would it help if we go over the positions again?
Let's see if I can do it in a way that isn't biased. Please do point out where I misrepresent the different arguments. In this post, I'm trying to capture the essence without applying my own judgements. Not all arguments on either side are necessarily held by all proponents of that side. I'll also mix in some arguments from the Booming Blade thread, since this thread emerged from that one. Some of these arguments might not have any remaining proponents, and do please suggest arguments that I've omitted.
The AGAINST position(s): (Teleport is not movement)
The FOR positions (Teleport is movement)
I think that's about where we're at. As I said - feel free to correct or add to this.
(Edit -- added Feline Agility example, clarification on the "restrictive" vs "permissive" movement sections in the PHB)
Good catch on Grasping Arrow, but I'd strike magic circle entirely. It doesn't include the word move anywhere in the description.
I'd also like to add that creatures who teleport do not provoke Opportunity Attacks. As I see it, there are two ways to read this rule:
And, if I may, I'd like to pose a hypothetical: a Tabaxi spellcaster with access to teleportation magic (e.g. dimension door, misty step, or thunder step).
If one uses this to double their speed for a turn and move 60 feet, does teleportation still count as moving for the purposes of letting this recharge? Must they remain stationary for an entire turn? Or is the lack of physical exertion enough to allow the trait to recharge?
As for OA I would contend #1, as for the Feline Agility teleporting on the recharge turn would not allow the recharge, and would mean you do have to remain stationary for the entire turn to regain the trait.
Re: Feline Agility
The 3rd option is that Teleportation is movement, but has a "Not Applicable" distance value, so it would satisfy "move 0", as opposed to "doesn't move".
Fair enough. It came up, I believe, in the context of "entering an area" (the original context of this thread) so I've included it for reference.
Agreed. That's why I mentioned it in both sections as "evidence" for the respective positions. I can read it in either way. Initially I read it the 2nd way, but on a closer read, I think they meant it in the first way. IMO.
Ooohhh. That's a good one. My gut feeling says that this is in the context of physical exertion, so I'd interpret the "move 0 feet" in this ability as "using 0 feet of your movement speeds" rather than "remaining stationary". However, I don't think most rules are written with teleport held in mind by the designers. This feature suffers from that problem. To my mind, it should call out "except by teleport" if that shouldn't count as moving for the purposes of this power. That would certainly clarify it for me.
But I agree, this feature seems to be about physical exertion, and it does look like evidence that at least the designers of this feature didn't think of teleport as counting as movement.
I'd add as evidence: that a literal reading of every teleport effect shows they don't call themselves movement or moving. They either say 'teleport' (mostly from more recently released sources) just generally or instead use terms like "instantaneously appear" for their listed effect.
That is strictly and provably false. Magic Circle never once uses the words Move, Movement, Moving.
Overland movement is still accomplished with your available movement type and it isn't talking broadly at all... walking, jumping, climbing, swimming, flying, crawling, burrowing. Is there some other means of movement the rules discuss and that yall use? I don't know of any. Can yall fly around when traveling overland even if yall don't have a fly speed? No. Overland travel still uses movement types and movement rules. There is a serious misconception going on if yall think normal movement rules don't apply simply because you're not in combat. Yes, it abstracts this process out to larger distances and larger intervals of time, but it is still accomplishing all that movement with your character's available movement types and these rules are well explained.
Otherwise this is a decent summary.
Edit: Yalls
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.
I've added that. Good point.
Ahh yes. Someone else also pointed this out. I was reading through the thread earlier and put this in from an early comment. I realize now it was in context of "entering an area" rather "moving". I've updated my earlier summary to mention that.
Agreed -- I guess my point was more about how the rules tend to be permissive and general, rather than restrictive and specific (except when they want to be). The overland rules don't mention teleport. On the one hand one might argue that's because teleport isn't movement. On the other hand, one could argue that's because a Teleport spell just moves you past all the overland stuff and so there's no point in mentioning it in the section on overland travel ;)
The three main textual references where teleportation is assumed to be a kind or method of moving are the rules for OAs where it is included as a specific exception along with forced movement, the rules for moving while prone where it states that the only way to move while prone is to crawl or teleport, and the spell Hallow where it can be used to prevent anyone from moving via teleportation or plane shifting.