All of which is inference. Teleportation is never once explicitly stated as moving or called a move.
Again, I will draw people's attention to pages 189 and 190 of the Player's Handbook.
Your Turn
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet.
The most common actions you can take are described in the "Actions in Combat" section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action.
The "Movement and Position" section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.
You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn. If you can't decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Ready action, as described in "Actions in Combat."
Movement and Position
In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand.
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules here.
Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping, climbing, and swimming.
As far as explicit text is concerned, this is it. Teleportation is conspicuously absent. Why? Because there's no speed. It had a speed in 4th edition, but this isn't fourth edition.
If you attempt to Shove someone away, you don't move them. You push them. If you cast thorn whip, you can't move the target. But you can pull them closer. And when you look at every single feature or spell which allows for teleportation, not a single one uses the word "move."
This has all been people inventing connections and interpretations which are neither expressed nor implied. You only see what you want to see. And if y'all want to house rule this at your table, then fine. But you will make people unhappy if you do. And for no other reason than needlessly overcomplicating the rules you play by. You do not get to say this is how the rules work. You are spreading misinformation. And that is the only reason I haven't quit the insanity already. Someone has to correct you.
The bolded is absolutely a semantic discussion, not a technical one, and plain english would disagree with your assertion. If I say "I pushed the vase to the other end of the table" it is not incorrect to say "I moved the vase to the other end of the table". "Push" is more specific than "move", but they are the same thing. With thorn whip, saying "I pulled the orc 10 feet closer to me" is the same as if I said "I moved the orc 10 feet closer to me".
"move" is a generic term, "push", "pull", "transport", "carry", etc are versions of "move" that are descriptively more specific, but are all variations of "move"
edit: removed unnecessary quotes
Language is an art; the rules, a conversation. You can accept or reject what they have to say, but they are what they are. And, in the context of the rules, move has a clear definition. It's even bolded when the rules first reference it in the PHB. When the word is present, the rules are referencing that rule. And when it's absent, that rule is not being referenced.
And this isn't uncommon. There are countless professions where a common word carries a specific meaning on the job. And any meaning outside that specific one is discounted; deemed irrelevant. Crawford, and the rest of the team at WotC, weren't subtle when they wrote the rules. There's nothing hidden; held back as a secret to be uncovered by only the most canny of eyes. If the word move does not appear, then the rule isn't being referenced.
By your own admission, you're relying on a colloquial meaning of the word and employing it where it's not expressed. You are, expressly, going against the RAW. And there is no Sage Advice article to support so much as your interpretation of the rules.
Both dissonant whispers and thorn whip reposition the target. The former references both move and speed. The affected creature may provoke an Opportunity Attack, but they won't trigger the secondary damage of booming blade because it's compelled and not willing. The same, for the record, can also be said of command. The latter, however, will do neither. The reposition is both unwilling and not a move because neither move nor speed is referenced. Ditto for the Way of the Four Elements monk's Fist of Unbroken Air and Water Whip Elemental Disciplines. They push and pull, but they don't move.
The orc's Aggressive trait references both move and speed. So features like the Way of Shadow monk's Shadow Step and the Oath of Vengeance paladin's Relentless Avenger. If you use them, you move. But spells like dimension door and misty step do not. If you use these, you have not moved. Your relative position has changed, but you have not moved. They don't even have material or somatic components. A sorcerer could cast them without so much as blinking.
The common usage does not matter. What matters is whether or not the word move appears. Again, you are needlessly complicating this.
I'm sorry, but the game rules expect you to apply plain english meanings to rules. if they mean move as a game term meaning use of speed, then they put it in bold just as we did, include it under a heading/subheading, or explicitly reference speed in the individual rule(this is called formatting). if they don't, then it can, and should, be interpreted as the common english meaning.
I typed about this before, people confusing colloquial movement with how the book uses the term. Your character changes locations, and if you're playing with miniatures or on a VTT you move the token, but the character doesn't "move." If they did, wouldn't a single teleportation effect use "move" in their description? Wouldn't all of them, for the sake of consistency?
The book indicates that teleportation is moving three times. The book never says teleportation is not moving.
I count maybe one, if you look at the rule coving being Prone, in the combat section.
Things I can find get more and more tenuous/consequentialist (teleporting not being moving has weird consequences) from here:
Glyph of Warding's wording was errataed to simply state that if it's moved, it breaks - the old wording was more flowery, saying that it had to remain in its place, and then going on to explain what distance broke it. The latter implies that anything capable of changing its place is by definition moving it. But it's pretty bogus trying to ignore errata to come to a conclusion. Post-errata, it is simply a consequence of teleportation not being movement that it would let you change a glyph's location without breaking it.
Frightened only limits willing movement (the phrase is "willingly move"), so if teleportation isn't movement, you can willingly move closer to what you're frightened of.
Everything you're pointing to as why teleportation is moving is a rule explaining how teleportation is different from moving.
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.
All this talk about if "appearing" somewhere means you moved and if so how far. Just answer: If you plane shift from the plane of fire to the material plane. How far have you moved?
If your rules are consistent, and you can measure how far they've moved... go ahead and give us an answer in feet.
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.
All of which is inference. Teleportation is never once explicitly stated as moving or called a move.
Again, I will draw people's attention to pages 189 and 190 of the Player's Handbook.
Your Turn
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet.
The most common actions you can take are described in the "Actions in Combat" section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action.
The "Movement and Position" section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.
You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn. If you can't decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Ready action, as described in "Actions in Combat."
Movement and Position
In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand.
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules here.
Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping, climbing, and swimming.
As far as explicit text is concerned, this is it. Teleportation is conspicuously absent. Why? Because there's no speed. It had a speed in 4th edition, but this isn't fourth edition.
If you attempt to Shove someone away, you don't move them. You push them. If you cast thorn whip, you can't move the target. But you can pull them closer. And when you look at every single feature or spell which allows for teleportation, not a single one uses the word "move."
This has all been people inventing connections and interpretations which are neither expressed nor implied. You only see what you want to see. And if y'all want to house rule this at your table, then fine. But you will make people unhappy if you do. And for no other reason than needlessly overcomplicating the rules you play by. You do not get to say this is how the rules work. You are spreading misinformation. And that is the only reason I haven't quit the insanity already. Someone has to correct you.
The bolded is absolutely a semantic discussion, not a technical one, and plain english would disagree with your assertion. If I say "I pushed the vase to the other end of the table" it is not incorrect to say "I moved the vase to the other end of the table". "Push" is more specific than "move", but they are the same thing. With thorn whip, saying "I pulled the orc 10 feet closer to me" is the same as if I said "I moved the orc 10 feet closer to me".
"move" is a generic term, "push", "pull", "transport", "carry", etc are versions of "move" that are descriptively more specific, but are all variations of "move"
edit: removed unnecessary quotes
Language is an art; the rules, a conversation. You can accept or reject what they have to say, but they are what they are. And, in the context of the rules, move has a clear definition. It's even bolded when the rules first reference it in the PHB. When the word is present, the rules are referencing that rule. And when it's absent, that rule is not being referenced.
And this isn't uncommon. There are countless professions where a common word carries a specific meaning on the job. And any meaning outside that specific one is discounted; deemed irrelevant. Crawford, and the rest of the team at WotC, weren't subtle when they wrote the rules. There's nothing hidden; held back as a secret to be uncovered by only the most canny of eyes. If the word move does not appear, then the rule isn't being referenced.
By your own admission, you're relying on a colloquial meaning of the word and employing it where it's not expressed. You are, expressly, going against the RAW. And there is no Sage Advice article to support so much as your interpretation of the rules.
Both dissonant whispers and thorn whip reposition the target. The former references both move and speed. The affected creature may provoke an Opportunity Attack, but they won't trigger the secondary damage of booming blade because it's compelled and not willing. The same, for the record, can also be said of command. The latter, however, will do neither. The reposition is both unwilling and not a move because neither move nor speed is referenced. Ditto for the Way of the Four Elements monk's Fist of Unbroken Air and Water Whip Elemental Disciplines. They push and pull, but they don't move.
The orc's Aggressive trait references both move and speed. So features like the Way of Shadow monk's Shadow Step and the Oath of Vengeance paladin's Relentless Avenger. If you use them, you move. But spells like dimension door and misty step do not. If you use these, you have not moved. Your relative position has changed, but you have not moved. They don't even have material or somatic components. A sorcerer could cast them without so much as blinking.
The common usage does not matter. What matters is whether or not the word move appears. Again, you are needlessly complicating this.
Thank you! Preach that RAW goodness. This is beautifully said.
Jounichi's right. The text of the book tells you exactly what an ability does. If you say Teleport "moves" you, you've invented something that simply isn't on the page. If you want Rules As Written, the text of the books should be your guide, not a thesaurus. We're not playing scrabble we're playing D&D. (Nothing against scrabble).
With the various types of teleportation we've talked about, one of the three things happens.
Either you move through a teleportation-effect-like gate/portal. See Arcane Gate. The moving portion of this being moving, obviously, but the teleportation/gate portion isn't. Walk 10ft, through a gate, and another 10ft and you've walked only 20ft. Even if you're now hundreds of feet away.
Otherwise many of them state you simply "appear" at the destination. For these no "moving" or even synonym of "moving" is used to describe the effect. You just are there now.
And finally, we have teleportation spells that describe it as being transported. Obviously that isn't the same as moving. What is really extra interesting about the word "transported" is it actually means something is being done to you, not you doing something. Being transported means the teleportation effect is the one doing the action here, you're what is being acted upon. Similar to other types of forced relocations. Push/pull/fall etc.
What is absent in 100% of cases is a teleport effect describing itself as movement, as moving, or using a speed. So, saying it does flies directly in the face of RAW.
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.
All of which is inference. Teleportation is never once explicitly stated as moving or called a move.
Again, I will draw people's attention to pages 189 and 190 of the Player's Handbook.
Your Turn
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet.
The most common actions you can take are described in the "Actions in Combat" section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action.
The "Movement and Position" section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.
You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn. If you can't decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Ready action, as described in "Actions in Combat."
Movement and Position
In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand.
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules here.
Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping, climbing, and swimming.
As far as explicit text is concerned, this is it. Teleportation is conspicuously absent. Why? Because there's no speed. It had a speed in 4th edition, but this isn't fourth edition.
If you attempt to Shove someone away, you don't move them. You push them. If you cast thorn whip, you can't move the target. But you can pull them closer. And when you look at every single feature or spell which allows for teleportation, not a single one uses the word "move."
This has all been people inventing connections and interpretations which are neither expressed nor implied. You only see what you want to see. And if y'all want to house rule this at your table, then fine. But you will make people unhappy if you do. And for no other reason than needlessly overcomplicating the rules you play by. You do not get to say this is how the rules work. You are spreading misinformation. And that is the only reason I haven't quit the insanity already. Someone has to correct you.
The bolded is absolutely a semantic discussion, not a technical one, and plain english would disagree with your assertion. If I say "I pushed the vase to the other end of the table" it is not incorrect to say "I moved the vase to the other end of the table". "Push" is more specific than "move", but they are the same thing. With thorn whip, saying "I pulled the orc 10 feet closer to me" is the same as if I said "I moved the orc 10 feet closer to me".
"move" is a generic term, "push", "pull", "transport", "carry", etc are versions of "move" that are descriptively more specific, but are all variations of "move"
edit: removed unnecessary quotes
Language is an art; the rules, a conversation. You can accept or reject what they have to say, but they are what they are. And, in the context of the rules, move has a clear definition. It's even bolded when the rules first reference it in the PHB. When the word is present, the rules are referencing that rule. And when it's absent, that rule is not being referenced.
And this isn't uncommon. There are countless professions where a common word carries a specific meaning on the job. And any meaning outside that specific one is discounted; deemed irrelevant. Crawford, and the rest of the team at WotC, weren't subtle when they wrote the rules. There's nothing hidden; held back as a secret to be uncovered by only the most canny of eyes. If the word move does not appear, then the rule isn't being referenced.
By your own admission, you're relying on a colloquial meaning of the word and employing it where it's not expressed. You are, expressly, going against the RAW. And there is no Sage Advice article to support so much as your interpretation of the rules.
Both dissonant whispers and thorn whip reposition the target. The former references both move and speed. The affected creature may provoke an Opportunity Attack, but they won't trigger the secondary damage of booming blade because it's compelled and not willing. The same, for the record, can also be said of command. The latter, however, will do neither. The reposition is both unwilling and not a move because neither move nor speed is referenced. Ditto for the Way of the Four Elements monk's Fist of Unbroken Air and Water Whip Elemental Disciplines. They push and pull, but they don't move.
The orc's Aggressive trait references both move and speed. So features like the Way of Shadow monk's Shadow Step and the Oath of Vengeance paladin's Relentless Avenger. If you use them, you move. But spells like dimension door and misty step do not. If you use these, you have not moved. Your relative position has changed, but you have not moved. They don't even have material or somatic components. A sorcerer could cast them without so much as blinking.
The common usage does not matter. What matters is whether or not the word move appears. Again, you are needlessly complicating this.
Thank you! Preach that RAW goodness. This is beautifully said.
Jounichi's right. The text of the book tells you exactly what an ability does. If you say Teleport "moves" you, you've invented something that simply isn't on the page. If you want Rules As Written, the text of the books should be your guide, not a thesaurus. We're not playing scrabble we're playing D&D. (Nothing against scrabble).
If the rules had a glossary, this would be more applicable. I read building codes for a living. those codes have a glossary, and make every attempt to only use the word as it is defined in that glossary (so "exit" for example means a very specific thing, specifically a noun, representing a specific set of points in a building. Some of those points would not be construed as exits in plain english, thus the term, glossary, and specific word choice to avoid the word in other contexts). 5e rules don't have one, and are not written that way.
With the various types of teleportation we've talked about, one of the three things happens.
Either you move through a teleportation-effect-like gate/portal. See Arcane Gate. The moving portion of this being moving, obviously, but the teleportation/gate portion isn't. Walk 10ft, through a gate, and another 10ft and you've walked only 20ft. Even if you're now hundreds of feet away.
Otherwise many of them state you simply "appear" at the destination. For these no "moving" or even synonym of "moving" is used to describe the effect. You just are there now.
And finally, we have teleportation spells that describe it as being transported. Obviously that isn't the same as moving. What is really extra interesting about the word "transported" is it actually means something is being done to you, not you doing something. Being transported means the teleportation effect is the one doing the action here, you're what is being acted upon. Similar to other types of forced relocations. Push/pull/fall etc.
What you are calling "forced relocations" (which ie is not a term the game uses to define those either), can be commonly understood to be "moving" in plain english. The fact that you are having to resort to using a highly unusual term here, when the game itself does not, should clue you in that your method is not how the rules are intended to be read.
What is absent in 100% of cases is a teleport effect describing itself as movement, as moving, or using a speed. So, saying it does flies directly in the face of RAW.
What is happening here is a complete inability to come to an understanding of how to read RAW. You are saying (or have said) that no example of moving can exist without using or referencing your speed. You give evidence that that is because the game rules define what movement is, and if an ability does not say something is movement, then it isn't (please correct me if any of this is not what you are arguing). Furthermore, in this post (bolded section), you seem to indicate that any synonym for movement or moving is not movement or moving because they didn't use the word move, which again; not how plain english works.
If this is the case, please reconcile an example like telekinesis. That spell explicitly says you are moving a creature or object. It does not require the use of your speed or the targets speed. so is being moved by Telekinesis movement?
Also, please reconcile levitate which, in describing what a target can do, uses both the terms "push" and "pull", and then defines both of those terms as allowing the target to "move" in the same. In that case, how is pushing or pulling a forced relocation? you are doing it to yourself.
This is the biggest problem I and others have with your approach. Either you 1) do as you say, and only read the "game" term version of a word anytime it's used, but then have to reconcile that other rules exist where this is not true, or 2) accept that sometimes the rules don't use the "game" term version of a word and expect you to instead use the plain english.
Fire engines are red. Red is a colour. Fire engines are colours?
No, that's abusing how flexible the verb "to be" is. Here's the exchange again, with a more mathematical bent:
Iconarising: If carry is a subset of move, and transport is a subset of carry, then transport is a subset of carry.
You: Fire engine is a subset of red object, and red is a subset of colour. Is fire engine a subset of colour?
Logical answer: False. You never established that fire engines were a subset of red, so red being a subset of colour does not mean anything for fire engine. You established fire engine is a subset of red object, and that red is a subset of colour, but you never established red object is a subset of colour or that fire engine is a subset of red.
Stepping away from just logic so we can answer unanswered questions, red object isn't a subset of colour and fire engine isn't a subset of red.
Put another way: you shifted definitions of "red" halfway through from an adjective (in the first sentence) to a noun (in the second sentence), and then tried to reconcile the two, even though red's definition as an adjective is wildly different from its definition as a noun. Unsurprisingly, you reached a false conclusion (that fire engines are colours). By contrast, Iconarising did not do this with the terms they were discussing.
A definition of Transport includes the word 'carry' and a definition of 'Carry' includes the word 'Transport,' but you cannot say that another definition of Carry includes moving, therefore Transporting involves movement, particularly in the context of teleportation.
And yes, red is an adjective but it is also a noun. I could just as easily have said 'Fire Engines are the colour Red' and been speaking perfectly good English. To me, Iconarising is choosing only the definitions which suit his arguments but ignoring others that do not.
Teleport: transport or be transported across space and distance instantly.
Fire engines are red. Red is a colour. Fire engines are colours?
Note that transport is 'take or carry.' Note also 'or be transported.'
The bolded does not follow the logic you think it does (see quindraco's post above). My logic applies to synonyms, which was the entire point of the post. "Move" "carry" "transport" are synonyms (source Google/Oxford), "Fire Engine" and "Red" are not.
Also: Take: carry or bring with one; convey. (this is the definition synonymous with "transport" per source.)
Don't deliberately ignore intent, logic, grammar, and english to try and keep your point valid...it isn't as good a look as you think it is.
"Move," Carry," and "Transport" can be synonyms, but "Carry" much less so, since you can be carrying a load even when not moving. If you carry something across a border, yes, in that context, it is synonymous with moving, however that is the discussion here, whether you are moving yourself and all you carry across any given geographical borders, or simply changing location without passing through any intervening space.
Blame this one on english, which gives words multiple meanings. not all meanings of two words have to be identical for the words to be synonymous. Side note, did you know that "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is a grammatically correct sentence in english? (google it, it even has it's own wikipedia entry). The fact that "carry" as a verb can have two definitions, only one of which includes is synonymous with "transport" is not a refutation of my point. Obviously the context of "transport" and "carry" being synonyms would infer the meanings of those words where it is synonymous. That is how English works. If for your point to be valid, you would have to ignore that fundamental rule of the language being spoken, maybe your point isn't valid.
Straight from Jeremy Crawford and in the Role of Rules section of the Sage Advice Compendium:
Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t. In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
When the lead rules designer says they didn't make rules for every single contingency within the game, and it's up to the players and DM to bridge the "gap" in those rules, that is not "Homebrewing" rules, it's accounting the contingency the rules don't address.
Think about it. If teleportation had a "Movement Speed", players and DM's would abuse and argue over the use of that speed, and it would stop the game completely.
The PHB Chapter 8: Adventuring subsection Movement very first paragraph:
Swimming across a rushing river, sneaking down a dungeon corridor, scaling a treacherous mountain slope - all sorts of movement play a key role in D&D adventures.
That reference to "all sorts of movement" includes movements that are magical in nature.
Chapter 10: Spellcasting gives the rules and mechanics of how magic works, and forces one to use those R&M to understand just how a magical spell will create it's effect.
Not all types of movement have a "movement speed" reference, and the rules team knew and know this. You must use the foundation of the rules given to bridge what the rules don't address, and those foundational rules are sprinkled throughout the PHB,DMG and various other material.
If a person simply does not want to do the work to make the connection, then that is their option. Those that do the work, will find as the game moves along, less and less work is needed for the game to run smoothly.
Some will say that is just "homebrewing" and not playing the game by the rules, no it's people addressing the contingency of when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
All of which is inference. Teleportation is never once explicitly stated as moving or called a move.
Again, I will draw people's attention to pages 189 and 190 of the Player's Handbook.
Your Turn
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet.
The most common actions you can take are described in the "Actions in Combat" section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action.
The "Movement and Position" section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.
You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn. If you can't decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Ready action, as described in "Actions in Combat."
Movement and Position
In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand.
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules here.
Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping, climbing, and swimming.
As far as explicit text is concerned, this is it. Teleportation is conspicuously absent. Why? Because there's no speed. It had a speed in 4th edition, but this isn't fourth edition.
If you attempt to Shove someone away, you don't move them. You push them. If you cast thorn whip, you can't move the target. But you can pull them closer. And when you look at every single feature or spell which allows for teleportation, not a single one uses the word "move."
This has all been people inventing connections and interpretations which are neither expressed nor implied. You only see what you want to see. And if y'all want to house rule this at your table, then fine. But you will make people unhappy if you do. And for no other reason than needlessly overcomplicating the rules you play by. You do not get to say this is how the rules work. You are spreading misinformation. And that is the only reason I haven't quit the insanity already. Someone has to correct you.
The bolded is absolutely a semantic discussion, not a technical one, and plain english would disagree with your assertion. If I say "I pushed the vase to the other end of the table" it is not incorrect to say "I moved the vase to the other end of the table". "Push" is more specific than "move", but they are the same thing. With thorn whip, saying "I pulled the orc 10 feet closer to me" is the same as if I said "I moved the orc 10 feet closer to me".
"move" is a generic term, "push", "pull", "transport", "carry", etc are versions of "move" that are descriptively more specific, but are all variations of "move"
edit: removed unnecessary quotes
Language is an art; the rules, a conversation. You can accept or reject what they have to say, but they are what they are. And, in the context of the rules, move has a clear definition. It's even bolded when the rules first reference it in the PHB. When the word is present, the rules are referencing that rule. And when it's absent, that rule is not being referenced.
And this isn't uncommon. There are countless professions where a common word carries a specific meaning on the job. And any meaning outside that specific one is discounted; deemed irrelevant. Crawford, and the rest of the team at WotC, weren't subtle when they wrote the rules. There's nothing hidden; held back as a secret to be uncovered by only the most canny of eyes. If the word move does not appear, then the rule isn't being referenced.
By your own admission, you're relying on a colloquial meaning of the word and employing it where it's not expressed. You are, expressly, going against the RAW. And there is no Sage Advice article to support so much as your interpretation of the rules.
Both dissonant whispers and thorn whip reposition the target. The former references both move and speed. The affected creature may provoke an Opportunity Attack, but they won't trigger the secondary damage of booming blade because it's compelled and not willing. The same, for the record, can also be said of command. The latter, however, will do neither. The reposition is both unwilling and not a move because neither move nor speed is referenced. Ditto for the Way of the Four Elements monk's Fist of Unbroken Air and Water Whip Elemental Disciplines. They push and pull, but they don't move.
The orc's Aggressive trait references both move and speed. So features like the Way of Shadow monk's Shadow Step and the Oath of Vengeance paladin's Relentless Avenger. If you use them, you move. But spells like dimension door and misty step do not. If you use these, you have not moved. Your relative position has changed, but you have not moved. They don't even have material or somatic components. A sorcerer could cast them without so much as blinking.
The common usage does not matter. What matters is whether or not the word move appears. Again, you are needlessly complicating this.
Thank you! Preach that RAW goodness. This is beautifully said.
Jounichi's right. The text of the book tells you exactly what an ability does. If you say Teleport "moves" you, you've invented something that simply isn't on the page. If you want Rules As Written, the text of the books should be your guide, not a thesaurus. We're not playing scrabble we're playing D&D. (Nothing against scrabble).
If the rules had a glossary, this would be more applicable. I read building codes for a living. those codes have a glossary, and make every attempt to only use the word as it is defined in that glossary (so "exit" for example means a very specific thing, specifically a noun, representing a specific set of points in a building. Some of those points would not be construed as exits in plain english, thus the term, glossary, and specific word choice to avoid the word in other contexts). 5e rules don't have one, and are not written that way.
It does have an index. Reference it. It'll show you which pages in the PHB you need to reread to understand the topic of movement. (pages 181-183, and 190-192)
With the various types of teleportation we've talked about, one of the three things happens.
Either you move through a teleportation-effect-like gate/portal. See Arcane Gate. The moving portion of this being moving, obviously, but the teleportation/gate portion isn't. Walk 10ft, through a gate, and another 10ft and you've walked only 20ft. Even if you're now hundreds of feet away.
Otherwise many of them state you simply "appear" at the destination. For these no "moving" or even synonym of "moving" is used to describe the effect. You just are there now.
And finally, we have teleportation spells that describe it as being transported. Obviously that isn't the same as moving. What is really extra interesting about the word "transported" is it actually means something is being done to you, not you doing something. Being transported means the teleportation effect is the one doing the action here, you're what is being acted upon. Similar to other types of forced relocations. Push/pull/fall etc.
What you are calling "forced relocations" (which ie is not a term the game uses to define those either), can be commonly understood to be "moving" in plain english. The fact that you are having to resort to using a highly unusual term here, when the game itself does not, should clue you in that your method is not how the rules are intended to be read.
The game absolutely makes the distinction between moving on your own power and forced relocations. This has been covered several times. If it is still troubling you I'd advise returning to the PHB text and read again. Falling/pushing/dragging/carrying a creature out of someone's reach wouldn't cause that creature to provoke opportunity attacks. This is absolutely a distinction the rules make. "For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy."
What is absent in 100% of cases is a teleport effect describing itself as movement, as moving, or using a speed. So, saying it does flies directly in the face of RAW.
What is happening here is a complete inability to come to an understanding of how to read RAW.
Rules. As. Written.
You argue that we should interpret something using words that are not written.
Therefore, what you argue is by definition not RAW.
You are saying (or have said) that no example of moving can exist without using or referencing your speed. You give evidence that that is because the game rules define what movement is, and if an ability does not say something is movement, then it isn't (please correct me if any of this is not what you are arguing).
RAW is what is written. If it isn't written, it isn't RAW. Yes that is my position.
For the record, though. I have never said "no example of moving can exist without using or referencing your speed". Please do not misrepresent me or my position in such a directly false way.
Furthermore, in this post (bolded section), you seem to indicate that any synonym for movement or moving is not movement or moving because they didn't use the word move, which again; not how plain english works.
You can write a thesaurus if you want to. But, if you do, and you say "Moving" is synonymous with "appearing" or "transporting" no one is going to consult it as an accurate resource.
You cannot redefine these words to mean something they don't. You cannot talk in enough circles to make the words on the pages in the PHB to be something other than what they are.
If this is the case, please reconcile an example like telekinesis. That spell explicitly says you are moving a creature or object. It does not require the use of your speed or the targets speed. so is being moved by Telekinesis movement?
It does exactly what it says it does. Does it say you move them? Yes. Does it say that uses movement? No. The text answers these questions for you. That is how RAW works.
Also, please reconcile levitate which, in describing what a target can do, uses both the terms "push" and "pull", and then defines both of those terms as allowing the target to "move" in the same. In that case, how is pushing or pulling a forced relocation? you are doing it to yourself.
It does exactly what it says. "The target can move only by pushing or pulling against a fixed object or surface within reach (such as a wall or a ceiling), which allows it to move as if it were climbing." It can move as if it were climbing. But only if it can push or pull against a fixed object or surface.
This is the biggest problem I and others have with your approach. Either you 1) do as you say, and only read the "game" term version of a word anytime it's used, but then have to reconcile that other rules exist where this is not true, or 2) accept that sometimes the rules don't use the "game" term version of a word and expect you to instead use the plain english.
Neither. I follow the instructions provided in the text of the book. If something calls itself moving, then it is moving. If it calls itself movement, then it is movement. If it calls itself appearing, then it is appearing. It is a super simple process. Do what the rules say to do.
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.
5e moved away from the more restrictive constructionist approach of 4e, in favor of using plain language where possible. You don't need to keep some rigid glossary of terms in your head and match them like a computer program to a restricted list of possible actions.
That way of thinking is very methodical and has a great deal of appeal to reduce ambiguity and promote consistency, but it's inherently limiting and unless the entire rules are written in the same exhaustive manner, it leads to nonsensical game play when rules inevitably conflict.
Since the game isn't run on a limited instruction set by a computer, but by humans, using the natural language understanding of the words is preferred.
Straight from Jeremy Crawford and in the Role of Rules section of the Sage Advice Compendium:
Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t. In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
When the lead rules designer says they didn't make rules for every single contingency within the game, and it's up to the players and DM to bridge the "gap" in those rules, that is not "Homebrewing" rules, it's accounting the contingency the rules don't address.(1)
Think about it. If teleportation had a "Movement Speed", players and DM's would abuse and argue over the use of that speed, and it would stop the game completely. (2)
The PHB Chapter 8: Adventuring subsection Movement very first paragraph:
Swimming across a rushing river, sneaking down a dungeon corridor, scaling a treacherous mountain slope - all sorts of movement play a key role in D&D adventures.
That reference to "all sorts of movement" includes movements that are magical in nature.(3)
Chapter 10: Spellcasting gives the rules and mechanics of how magic works, and forces one to use those R&M to understand just how a magical spell will create it's effect.
Not all types of movement have a "movement speed" reference(4), and the rules team knew and know this. You must use the foundation of the rules given to bridge what the rules don't address(5), and those foundational rules are sprinkled throughout the PHB,DMG and various other material.
If a person simply does not want to do the work to make the connection, then that is their option. Those that do the work, will find as the game moves along, less and less work is needed for the game to run smoothly.(6)
Some will say that is just "homebrewing" and not playing the game by the rules,(7) no it's people addressing the contingency of when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
This is all just supposition and unsupported claims...
Creating new rules or modifying existing rules is Homebrewing whether you like that fact or not.
Teleportation doesn't have a movement speed because it isn't a type of movement. And, as you point out, for good reason. It doesn't work the same way movement works. Giving it a speed and trying to force it to work like movement does would cause a LOT of problems.
Sure, you can magically Fly. Or Magically Jump. Or even magically Walk fast. All those "sorts" of movement still obey the established rules for movement types.
They do, or follow rules for them and are a subset of them. Jumping, for example, is a special type of Walking movement.
The rules address the types of movement. If you wish to create new ones that is homebrewing.
Are you arguing that anything a DM says is somehow RAW if they simply don't bother to know how it works in the first place? Hot take.
And they'd be correct. Deviated from the Rules as Written, by creating additional rules, changing the way a rule works, adding options that don't exist in the printed pages of the books... is homebrewing.
For the record, I fully support homebrewing and think more people should be comfortable accepting the fact that the weird things they do differently from the book is called homebrew. You wanna treat one thing as a different thing even if the books say otherwise? More power to you. Homebrew loud and proud. Think thousand years is too long to live and sleep is required for all mortals? Fine, modify those elves. Homebrew! Think the fact adamantine armor prevents crits is silly because a crit represents hitting you specifically where the armor isn't protecting? Homebrew it! Think every kind of relocation should all be treated and classified under a sweeping general classification as "movement"? Homebrew! Power to the people man. Run your game the way you wanna run your game.
But that is a different conversation than what we are having here. Here, in the Rules and mechanics forum, we are discussing how the rule actually works. As the text of the rulebook says it does. Two very different conversations. How you personally, as a DM, choose to rule something is totally your subjective choice and whatever you decide is indeed correct. But regardless of what your subjective opinion tells you about how your game should be run, the RAW remains objective and unchanged. We all can read the words printed in the rulebooks. And how you play your own game doesn't magically alter anyone else's rulebooks.
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.
Still curious though.For those who insist teleportation is somehow movement. And, when it says you are transported somewhere, or appear somewhere, etc, and yet you think that is some measurable distance of movement. For those who take that stance here:
If a wizard plane shifts from the plane of fire to the material plane. How far have they moved? If your rules are consistent, and you can measure how far they've moved... you should be able to provide that measurement in exact ft. Heck, even just a rough estimate of number of miles. Should be easy right?
You're saying "appearing" somewhere is a measurable type of movement right? That's the whole argument you're making. So measure 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.
Blame this one on english, which gives words multiple meanings. not all meanings of two words have to be identical for the words to be synonymous. Side note, did you know that "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is a grammatically correct sentence in english? (google it, it even has it's own wikipedia entry). The fact that "carry" as a verb can have two definitions, only one of which includes is synonymous with "transport" is not a refutation of my point. Obviously the context of "transport" and "carry" being synonyms would infer the meanings of those words where it is synonymous. That is how English works. If for your point to be valid, you would have to ignore that fundamental rule of the language being spoken, maybe your point isn't valid.
My point was that you are using Transport in the normal context, which does not involve teleportation since teleportation is not normal. One normally cannot carry anything somewhere without normal movement, so that is also the normal context for 'carry.' Yet one can be carrying something while standing still talking with another. The difference is 'to carry to' or 'to carry from' are more specific verbs than merely 'to carry.'
Teleportation is absolutely not normal, so the game designers, in numerous places used a word to describe what it is. that word was "transports" How am I supposed to read that in any way other than it's normal context? They are describing the unfamiliar using a familiar term, like we all do. I don't think their intent was for that term too to take on an unfamiliar context.
If you are carrying something while something else is carrying you, you are likely not actually moving yourself. While technically either one of us can walk faster than a plane in flight, if we happen to be on said plane, it does not mean the sentence 'I can run faster than a plane in flight' has meaning in normal context. It is also normal to say we are carrying/bringing/transporting a bottle of wine to our cousin in a distant city, but that does not mean it is us doing the actual moving rather than whatever vehicle is carrying us.
I agree that you aren't moving yourself, but you are moving. The first in-game would be movement, the second is not, but both would and should trigger an AoE if said move passed you into it. Remember the purpose of the thread was to define teleportation as movement/moving in the context of entering an AoE. whether I am moving, or am being moved, if I pass into an AoE then I have entered it. I consider teleportation to be moving, but not movement (I am being moved, but I am not moving myself), so i would rule that you enter an AoE if you appear in one.
This is what I am getting at with all these semantics.
I understand why we want to break down the language and understand the game, but the question we really are asking and debating (is teleportation a form of movement/moving/both/neither) is unknowable, because the game has never explicitly defined it (or does so different ways in different places). Without that, all we can do is interpret the RAW and RAI the best we can, and it is natural that different interpretations lead to different results (thus the 400+ posts of disagreements we are having in this thread alone, let alone the other threads spawned by all this). The biggest issue here is not in the interpretations themselves, but in the philosophy of interpretations being presented (where one side wants a rigid, text-only interpretation without the influence of plain english, and the other side wants a still rigid, text-based interpretation where plain english influences text that is unclear.
Straight from Jeremy Crawford and in the Role of Rules section of the Sage Advice Compendium:
Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t. In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
When the lead rules designer says they didn't make rules for every single contingency within the game, and it's up to the players and DM to bridge the "gap" in those rules, that is not "Homebrewing" rules, it's accounting the contingency the rules don't address.(1)
Think about it. If teleportation had a "Movement Speed", players and DM's would abuse and argue over the use of that speed, and it would stop the game completely. (2)
The PHB Chapter 8: Adventuring subsection Movement very first paragraph:
Swimming across a rushing river, sneaking down a dungeon corridor, scaling a treacherous mountain slope - all sorts of movement play a key role in D&D adventures.
That reference to "all sorts of movement" includes movements that are magical in nature.(3)
Chapter 10: Spellcasting gives the rules and mechanics of how magic works, and forces one to use those R&M to understand just how a magical spell will create it's effect.
Not all types of movement have a "movement speed" reference(4), and the rules team knew and know this. You must use the foundation of the rules given to bridge what the rules don't address(5), and those foundational rules are sprinkled throughout the PHB,DMG and various other material.
If a person simply does not want to do the work to make the connection, then that is their option. Those that do the work, will find as the game moves along, less and less work is needed for the game to run smoothly.(6)
Some will say that is just "homebrewing" and not playing the game by the rules,(7) no it's people addressing the contingency of when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
This is all just supposition and unsupported claims...
Creating new rules or modifying existing rules is Homebrewing whether you like that fact or not.
Teleportation doesn't have a movement speed because it isn't a type of movement. And, as you point out, for good reason. It doesn't work the same way movement works. Giving it a speed and trying to force it to work like movement does would cause a LOT of problems.
Sure, you can magically Fly. Or Magically Jump. Or even magically Walk fast. All those "sorts" of movement still obey the established rules for movement types.
They do, or follow rules for them and are a subset of them. Jumping, for example, is a special type of Walking movement.
The rules address the types of movement. If you wish to create new ones that is homebrewing.
Are you arguing that anything a DM says is somehow RAW if they simply don't bother to know how it works in the first place? Hot take.
And they'd be correct. Deviated from the Rules as Written, by creating additional rules, changing the way a rule works, adding options that don't exist in the printed pages of the books... is homebrewing.
For the record, I fully support homebrewing and think more people should be comfortable accepting the fact that the weird things they do differently from the book is called homebrew. You wanna treat one thing as a different thing even if the books say otherwise? More power to you. Homebrew loud and proud. Think thousand years is too long to live and sleep is required for all mortals? Fine, modify those elves. Homebrew! Think the fact adamantine armor prevents crits is silly because a crit represents hitting you specifically where the armor isn't protecting? Homebrew it! Think every kind of relocation should all be treated and classified under a sweeping general classification as "movement"? Homebrew! Power to the people man. Run your game the way you wanna run your game.
But that is a different conversation than what we are having here. Here, in the Rules and mechanics forum, we are discussing how the rule actually works. As the text of the rulebook says it does. Two very different conversations. How you personally, as a DM, choose to rule something is totally your subjective choice and whatever you decide is indeed correct. But regardless of what your subjective opinion tells you about how your game should be run, the RAW remains objective and unchanged. We all can read the words printed in the rulebooks. And how you play your own game doesn't magically alter anyone else's rulebooks.
When even the rules lead designer says not everything in the game is defined by a rule, doesn't mean it's not part of the games rules or mechanics, it means they simply did not what to spend forever having to spell it out in every detail for someone to understand, that would make the game unplayable.
And yes it does pertain to the current discussion, as the rules and mechanics of the game in the books tell you how teleporting works, if it did not then why even have the ability to teleport if you are not "moving" to some other place.
Common sense tells us that teleporting is a form of movement (you went from point A to point B, and how that movement is accomplished is defined by what we are told in descriptions of various references within the R&M. )
This stance of "if it's not a clear cut well defined Rule As Written, it is not how the game is played" just sounds like you don't understand how the rules interact with other rules to form the game as a whole.
If RAW remains objective and unchanged, then why develop other rules and mechanics that contradict each other or have to clarify the intention of those rules at a later date?
Straight from Jeremy Crawford and in the Role of Rules section of the Sage Advice Compendium:
Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t. In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
When the lead rules designer says they didn't make rules for every single contingency within the game, and it's up to the players and DM to bridge the "gap" in those rules, that is not "Homebrewing" rules, it's accounting the contingency the rules don't address.(1)
Think about it. If teleportation had a "Movement Speed", players and DM's would abuse and argue over the use of that speed, and it would stop the game completely. (2)
The PHB Chapter 8: Adventuring subsection Movement very first paragraph:
Swimming across a rushing river, sneaking down a dungeon corridor, scaling a treacherous mountain slope - all sorts of movement play a key role in D&D adventures.
That reference to "all sorts of movement" includes movements that are magical in nature.(3)
Chapter 10: Spellcasting gives the rules and mechanics of how magic works, and forces one to use those R&M to understand just how a magical spell will create it's effect.
Not all types of movement have a "movement speed" reference(4), and the rules team knew and know this. You must use the foundation of the rules given to bridge what the rules don't address(5), and those foundational rules are sprinkled throughout the PHB,DMG and various other material.
If a person simply does not want to do the work to make the connection, then that is their option. Those that do the work, will find as the game moves along, less and less work is needed for the game to run smoothly.(6)
Some will say that is just "homebrewing" and not playing the game by the rules,(7) no it's people addressing the contingency of when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
This is all just supposition and unsupported claims...
Creating new rules or modifying existing rules is Homebrewing whether you like that fact or not.
Every, and I mean Every, game requires some sort of interpretation of rules. If you call that homebrewing, that is fine, but I'd argue that is a mis-application of the term. Interpreting a rule differently than Ravnodaus is not creating a new rule or modifying an existing rule, it is interpretation, and is one of the roles of the DM to do.
Teleportation doesn't have a movement speed because it isn't a type of movement. And, as you point out, for good reason. It doesn't work the same way movement works. Giving it a speed and trying to force it to work like movement does would cause a LOT of problems.
I and others are not advocating this, we are saying that motion exists that does not use speed, and that every reference in the rules to "movement" "move" "moving" and it's synonyms do not follow the rules for movement set out in Chapters 8 and 9. (note the bold, which is how the rules are formatted when they reference an actual game term)
Sure, you can magically Fly. Or Magically Jump. Or even magically Walk fast. All those "sorts" of movement still obey the established rules for movement types.
Because they are examples of movement.
They do, or follow rules for them and are a subset of them. Jumping, for example, is a special type of Walking movement.
Falling doesn't, yet it is a type of movement (plain english, note the lack of bold), as is being pushed/pulled by a spell, or riding a vehicle in motion.
The rules address the types of movement. If you wish to create new ones that is homebrewing.
We aren't creating a type of movement, we are defining these "forced relocations" as movement (plain english, note the lack of bold) because that is what they are in the plainest terms. You forcing the use of a convoluted term to describe these is not RAW, which describes many of these as "move" "movement" or "moving"
Are you arguing that anything a DM says is somehow RAW if they simply don't bother to know how it works in the first place? Hot take.
No, but anything a DM says is law for the table they are DM'ing at. There is no such thing as a fully RAW table (unless the table is very very boring), because the RAW is not complete enough to address every situation that may come up
And they'd be correct. Deviated from the Rules as Written, by creating additional rules, changing the way a rule works, adding options that don't exist in the printed pages of the books... is homebrewing.
Again, do you play a RAW-only game? Have you never encountered a situation the RAW did not explicitly cover?
For the record, I fully support homebrewing and think more people should be comfortable accepting the fact that the weird things they do differently from the book is called homebrew. You wanna treat one thing as a different thing even if the books say otherwise? More power to you. Homebrew loud and proud. Think thousand years is too long to live and sleep is required for all mortals? Fine, modify those elves. Homebrew! Think the fact adamantine armor prevents crits is silly because a crit represents hitting you specifically where the armor isn't protecting? Homebrew it! Think every kind of relocation should all be treated and classified under a sweeping general classification as "movement"? Homebrew! Power to the people man. Run your game the way you wanna run your game.
For someone who claims to think this, you seem to have a lot of problems with people actually doing it. If what we are all doing is homebrew to you (and I'd argue it is not), and you are ok with that, then why the heck have you taken this thread to over 400 posts disagreeing with everyone who dares have a different opinion than you?
But that is a different conversation than what we are having here. Here, in the Rules and mechanics forum, we are discussing how the rule actually works. As the text of the rulebook says it does. Two very different conversations. How you personally, as a DM, choose to rule something is totally your subjective choice and whatever you decide is indeed correct. But regardless of what your subjective opinion tells you about how your game should be run, the RAW remains objective and unchanged. We all can read the words printed in the rulebooks. And how you play your own game doesn't magically alter anyone else's rulebooks.
The RAW is an imperfect document. It is an incomplete document. It is a contradictory and sometimes confusing and poorly written/formatted document. It cannot answer questions it does not contain answers to, because it does not provide many of the building blocks to do so. This is one of those questions.
We all can read the words printed in the rulebooks.
When even the rules lead designer says not everything in the game is defined by a rule, doesn't mean it's not part of the games rules or mechanics, it means they simply did not what to spend forever having to spell it out in every detail for someone to understand, that would make the game unplayable.
Deviating from the rulebook is homebrewing. That's just a fact. You're basically arguing the rules aren't the rules. I don't know what to tell you at this point. Take a step back and reconsider your take on this?
And yes it does pertain to the current discussion, as the rules and mechanics of the game in the books tell you how teleporting works, if it did not then why even have the ability to teleport if you are not "moving" to some other place.
Huh? You teleport to be there, not to move there. Moving, specifically, is the thing you want to avoid having to do when you teleport. If you were fine moving from A to B... why teleport there? Seems like a waste of spells if you teleport to a location you could have just as easily walked to if you whole goal was simply to be in motion. Teleporting arguably doesn't even accomplish that goal. IDK man. Hard to see what you're asking here.
Common sense tells us that teleporting is a form of movement (you went from point A to point B, and how that movement is accomplished is defined by what we are told in descriptions of various references within the R&M. )
No, it doesn't. Also, Common Sense, or rather... your version of it, isn't RAW.
This stance of "if it's not a clear cut well defined Rule As Written, it is not how the game is played" just sounds like you don't understand how the rules interact with other rules to form the game as a whole.
I specifically said I see a distinction between how a game is played vs RAW. And discussing those two things are two different conversations. Again, I urge you not to specifically misrepresent my stance in such a directly incorrect way. Directly incorrect.
If RAW remains objective and unchanged, then why develop other rules and mechanics that contradict each other or have to clarify the intention of those rules at a later date?
Are you asking why they continue to write new books? Uh... they run a business.
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.
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)
This might help, or it might further confuse things (Jeremy Crawford via Twitter):
Teleportation is instantaneous in D&D, moving you from one spot to another. You don't move through the intervening space.
That means a spell like dimension door is unaffected by a wall of force. #DnD
The phrasing here roughly implies that teleportation is a *magical effect* that happens *to* the target, not something they are *doing*, per se.
Willy the Wizard "Casts Teleport" and is moved 20ft, he doesn't perform the action of teleporting.
Intervening obstacles are rendered irrelevant. Whether it's a wall, opportunity attack, or a non-teleport specific triggerable effect, it doesn't come into play.
Effects that are contingent upon a creature entering an area continue to apply, because it takes place after the instantaneous effect of teleportation occurs. It is based on a novel position state, not transience.
Edit: As a truly instantaneous effect, there is no point at which it is happening. You can willingly accept the effect of a spell, but there is no point at which a character is "willingly teleporting", because it is non-temporal.
This might help, or it might further confuse things (Jeremy Crawford via Twitter):
Teleportation is instantaneous in D&D, moving you from one spot to another. You don't move through the intervening space.
That means a spell like dimension door is unaffected by a wall of force. #DnD
The phrasing here roughly implies that teleportation is a *magical effect* that happens *to* the target, not something they are *doing*, per se.
Willy the Wizard "Casts Teleport" and is moved 20ft, he doesn't perform the action of teleporting.
Intervening obstacles are rendered irrelevant. Whether it's a wall, opportunity attack, or a non-teleport specific triggerable effect, it doesn't come into play.
Effects that are contingent upon a creature entering an area continue to apply, because it takes place after the instantaneous effect of teleportation occurs. It is based on a novel position state, not transience.
It'd be nice to have the url link to that quote.
Note the use of the term "moving" in reference to Teleporting. Note also that it moves you from one place to another.
In other words, it moves you some distance other than 0 feet.
This is more evidence that Teleportation is movement (without needing to be a Movement Type, which no one claims it is).
We all can read the words printed in the rulebooks.
When even the rules lead designer says not everything in the game is defined by a rule, doesn't mean it's not part of the games rules or mechanics, it means they simply did not what to spend forever having to spell it out in every detail for someone to understand, that would make the game unplayable.
Deviating from the rulebook is homebrewing. That's just a fact. You're basically arguing the rules aren't the rules. I don't know what to tell you at this point. Take a step back and reconsider your take on this?
There's a difference between using natural language to interpret what the rules say, and "deviating" from the rules. Changing the rules (such as "I think everyone should re-roll initiative every round, instead of once at the start of combat." ) -- that's a deviation, a house rule.
Reading "You vanish and appear up to 30 feet away" as "not moving, or at least moving 0 feet because I didn't use any speed to move" is an interpretation. And it is completely rational to interpret vanishing and reappearing some distance away as having moved that distance, using the normal natural understanding of "to move".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm sorry, but the game rules expect you to apply plain english meanings to rules. if they mean move as a game term meaning use of speed, then they put it in bold just as we did, include it under a heading/subheading, or explicitly reference speed in the individual rule(this is called formatting). if they don't, then it can, and should, be interpreted as the common english meaning.
Everything you're pointing to as why teleportation is moving is a rule explaining how teleportation is different from moving.
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.
All this talk about if "appearing" somewhere means you moved and if so how far. Just answer: If you plane shift from the plane of fire to the material plane. How far have you moved?
If your rules are consistent, and you can measure how far they've moved... go ahead and give us an answer in feet.
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.
Thank you! Preach that RAW goodness. This is beautifully said.
Jounichi's right. The text of the book tells you exactly what an ability does. If you say Teleport "moves" you, you've invented something that simply isn't on the page. If you want Rules As Written, the text of the books should be your guide, not a thesaurus. We're not playing scrabble we're playing D&D. (Nothing against scrabble).
With the various types of teleportation we've talked about, one of the three things happens.
What is absent in 100% of cases is a teleport effect describing itself as movement, as moving, or using a speed. So, saying it does flies directly in the face of RAW.
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.
If the rules had a glossary, this would be more applicable. I read building codes for a living. those codes have a glossary, and make every attempt to only use the word as it is defined in that glossary (so "exit" for example means a very specific thing, specifically a noun, representing a specific set of points in a building. Some of those points would not be construed as exits in plain english, thus the term, glossary, and specific word choice to avoid the word in other contexts). 5e rules don't have one, and are not written that way.
What you are calling "forced relocations" (which ie is not a term the game uses to define those either), can be commonly understood to be "moving" in plain english. The fact that you are having to resort to using a highly unusual term here, when the game itself does not, should clue you in that your method is not how the rules are intended to be read.
What is happening here is a complete inability to come to an understanding of how to read RAW. You are saying (or have said) that no example of moving can exist without using or referencing your speed. You give evidence that that is because the game rules define what movement is, and if an ability does not say something is movement, then it isn't (please correct me if any of this is not what you are arguing). Furthermore, in this post (bolded section), you seem to indicate that any synonym for movement or moving is not movement or moving because they didn't use the word move, which again; not how plain english works.
If this is the case, please reconcile an example like telekinesis. That spell explicitly says you are moving a creature or object. It does not require the use of your speed or the targets speed. so is being moved by Telekinesis movement?
Also, please reconcile levitate which, in describing what a target can do, uses both the terms "push" and "pull", and then defines both of those terms as allowing the target to "move" in the same. In that case, how is pushing or pulling a forced relocation? you are doing it to yourself.
This is the biggest problem I and others have with your approach. Either you 1) do as you say, and only read the "game" term version of a word anytime it's used, but then have to reconcile that other rules exist where this is not true, or 2) accept that sometimes the rules don't use the "game" term version of a word and expect you to instead use the plain english.
Blame this one on english, which gives words multiple meanings. not all meanings of two words have to be identical for the words to be synonymous. Side note, did you know that "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is a grammatically correct sentence in english? (google it, it even has it's own wikipedia entry). The fact that "carry" as a verb can have two definitions, only one of which includes is synonymous with "transport" is not a refutation of my point. Obviously the context of "transport" and "carry" being synonyms would infer the meanings of those words where it is synonymous. That is how English works. If for your point to be valid, you would have to ignore that fundamental rule of the language being spoken, maybe your point isn't valid.
Straight from Jeremy Crawford and in the Role of Rules section of the Sage Advice Compendium:
When the lead rules designer says they didn't make rules for every single contingency within the game, and it's up to the players and DM to bridge the "gap" in those rules, that is not "Homebrewing" rules, it's accounting the contingency the rules don't address.
Think about it. If teleportation had a "Movement Speed", players and DM's would abuse and argue over the use of that speed, and it would stop the game completely.
The PHB Chapter 8: Adventuring subsection Movement very first paragraph:
That reference to "all sorts of movement" includes movements that are magical in nature.
Chapter 10: Spellcasting gives the rules and mechanics of how magic works, and forces one to use those R&M to understand just how a magical spell will create it's effect.
Not all types of movement have a "movement speed" reference, and the rules team knew and know this. You must use the foundation of the rules given to bridge what the rules don't address, and those foundational rules are sprinkled throughout the PHB,DMG and various other material.
If a person simply does not want to do the work to make the connection, then that is their option. Those that do the work, will find as the game moves along, less and less work is needed for the game to run smoothly.
Some will say that is just "homebrewing" and not playing the game by the rules, no it's people addressing the contingency of when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
It does have an index. Reference it. It'll show you which pages in the PHB you need to reread to understand the topic of movement. (pages 181-183, and 190-192)
The game absolutely makes the distinction between moving on your own power and forced relocations. This has been covered several times. If it is still troubling you I'd advise returning to the PHB text and read again. Falling/pushing/dragging/carrying a creature out of someone's reach wouldn't cause that creature to provoke opportunity attacks. This is absolutely a distinction the rules make. "For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy."
Rules. As. Written.
You argue that we should interpret something using words that are not written.
Therefore, what you argue is by definition not RAW.
RAW is what is written. If it isn't written, it isn't RAW. Yes that is my position.
For the record, though. I have never said "no example of moving can exist without using or referencing your speed". Please do not misrepresent me or my position in such a directly false way.
You can write a thesaurus if you want to. But, if you do, and you say "Moving" is synonymous with "appearing" or "transporting" no one is going to consult it as an accurate resource.
You cannot redefine these words to mean something they don't. You cannot talk in enough circles to make the words on the pages in the PHB to be something other than what they are.
It does exactly what it says it does. Does it say you move them? Yes. Does it say that uses movement? No. The text answers these questions for you. That is how RAW works.
It does exactly what it says. "The target can move only by pushing or pulling against a fixed object or surface within reach (such as a wall or a ceiling), which allows it to move as if it were climbing." It can move as if it were climbing. But only if it can push or pull against a fixed object or surface.
Neither. I follow the instructions provided in the text of the book. If something calls itself moving, then it is moving. If it calls itself movement, then it is movement. If it calls itself appearing, then it is appearing. It is a super simple process. Do what the rules say to do.
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.
5e moved away from the more restrictive constructionist approach of 4e, in favor of using plain language where possible. You don't need to keep some rigid glossary of terms in your head and match them like a computer program to a restricted list of possible actions.
That way of thinking is very methodical and has a great deal of appeal to reduce ambiguity and promote consistency, but it's inherently limiting and unless the entire rules are written in the same exhaustive manner, it leads to nonsensical game play when rules inevitably conflict.
Since the game isn't run on a limited instruction set by a computer, but by humans, using the natural language understanding of the words is preferred.
This is all just supposition and unsupported claims...
For the record, I fully support homebrewing and think more people should be comfortable accepting the fact that the weird things they do differently from the book is called homebrew. You wanna treat one thing as a different thing even if the books say otherwise? More power to you. Homebrew loud and proud. Think thousand years is too long to live and sleep is required for all mortals? Fine, modify those elves. Homebrew! Think the fact adamantine armor prevents crits is silly because a crit represents hitting you specifically where the armor isn't protecting? Homebrew it! Think every kind of relocation should all be treated and classified under a sweeping general classification as "movement"? Homebrew! Power to the people man. Run your game the way you wanna run your game.
But that is a different conversation than what we are having here. Here, in the Rules and mechanics forum, we are discussing how the rule actually works. As the text of the rulebook says it does. Two very different conversations. How you personally, as a DM, choose to rule something is totally your subjective choice and whatever you decide is indeed correct. But regardless of what your subjective opinion tells you about how your game should be run, the RAW remains objective and unchanged. We all can read the words printed in the rulebooks. And how you play your own game doesn't magically alter anyone else's rulebooks.
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.
Still curious though.For those who insist teleportation is somehow movement. And, when it says you are transported somewhere, or appear somewhere, etc, and yet you think that is some measurable distance of movement. For those who take that stance here:
If a wizard plane shifts from the plane of fire to the material plane. How far have they moved? If your rules are consistent, and you can measure how far they've moved... you should be able to provide that measurement in exact ft. Heck, even just a rough estimate of number of miles. Should be easy right?
You're saying "appearing" somewhere is a measurable type of movement right? That's the whole argument you're making. So measure this.
How far did they move?
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.
Teleportation is absolutely not normal, so the game designers, in numerous places used a word to describe what it is. that word was "transports" How am I supposed to read that in any way other than it's normal context? They are describing the unfamiliar using a familiar term, like we all do. I don't think their intent was for that term too to take on an unfamiliar context.
I agree that you aren't moving yourself, but you are moving. The first in-game would be movement, the second is not, but both would and should trigger an AoE if said move passed you into it. Remember the purpose of the thread was to define teleportation as movement/moving in the context of entering an AoE. whether I am moving, or am being moved, if I pass into an AoE then I have entered it. I consider teleportation to be moving, but not movement (I am being moved, but I am not moving myself), so i would rule that you enter an AoE if you appear in one.
I understand why we want to break down the language and understand the game, but the question we really are asking and debating (is teleportation a form of movement/moving/both/neither) is unknowable, because the game has never explicitly defined it (or does so different ways in different places). Without that, all we can do is interpret the RAW and RAI the best we can, and it is natural that different interpretations lead to different results (thus the 400+ posts of disagreements we are having in this thread alone, let alone the other threads spawned by all this). The biggest issue here is not in the interpretations themselves, but in the philosophy of interpretations being presented (where one side wants a rigid, text-only interpretation without the influence of plain english, and the other side wants a still rigid, text-based interpretation where plain english influences text that is unclear.
When even the rules lead designer says not everything in the game is defined by a rule, doesn't mean it's not part of the games rules or mechanics, it means they simply did not what to spend forever having to spell it out in every detail for someone to understand, that would make the game unplayable.
And yes it does pertain to the current discussion, as the rules and mechanics of the game in the books tell you how teleporting works, if it did not then why even have the ability to teleport if you are not "moving" to some other place.
Common sense tells us that teleporting is a form of movement (you went from point A to point B, and how that movement is accomplished is defined by what we are told in descriptions of various references within the R&M. )
This stance of "if it's not a clear cut well defined Rule As Written, it is not how the game is played" just sounds like you don't understand how the rules interact with other rules to form the game as a whole.
If RAW remains objective and unchanged, then why develop other rules and mechanics that contradict each other or have to clarify the intention of those rules at a later date?
Every, and I mean Every, game requires some sort of interpretation of rules. If you call that homebrewing, that is fine, but I'd argue that is a mis-application of the term. Interpreting a rule differently than Ravnodaus is not creating a new rule or modifying an existing rule, it is interpretation, and is one of the roles of the DM to do.
I and others are not advocating this, we are saying that motion exists that does not use speed, and that every reference in the rules to "movement" "move" "moving" and it's synonyms do not follow the rules for movement set out in Chapters 8 and 9. (note the bold, which is how the rules are formatted when they reference an actual game term)
Because they are examples of movement.
Falling doesn't, yet it is a type of movement (plain english, note the lack of bold), as is being pushed/pulled by a spell, or riding a vehicle in motion.
We aren't creating a type of movement, we are defining these "forced relocations" as movement (plain english, note the lack of bold) because that is what they are in the plainest terms. You forcing the use of a convoluted term to describe these is not RAW, which describes many of these as "move" "movement" or "moving"
No, but anything a DM says is law for the table they are DM'ing at. There is no such thing as a fully RAW table (unless the table is very very boring), because the RAW is not complete enough to address every situation that may come up
Again, do you play a RAW-only game? Have you never encountered a situation the RAW did not explicitly cover?
For someone who claims to think this, you seem to have a lot of problems with people actually doing it. If what we are all doing is homebrew to you (and I'd argue it is not), and you are ok with that, then why the heck have you taken this thread to over 400 posts disagreeing with everyone who dares have a different opinion than you?
The RAW is an imperfect document. It is an incomplete document. It is a contradictory and sometimes confusing and poorly written/formatted document. It cannot answer questions it does not contain answers to, because it does not provide many of the building blocks to do so. This is one of those questions.
Deviating from the rulebook is homebrewing. That's just a fact. You're basically arguing the rules aren't the rules. I don't know what to tell you at this point. Take a step back and reconsider your take on this?
Huh? You teleport to be there, not to move there. Moving, specifically, is the thing you want to avoid having to do when you teleport. If you were fine moving from A to B... why teleport there? Seems like a waste of spells if you teleport to a location you could have just as easily walked to if you whole goal was simply to be in motion. Teleporting arguably doesn't even accomplish that goal. IDK man. Hard to see what you're asking here.
No, it doesn't. Also, Common Sense, or rather... your version of it, isn't RAW.
I specifically said I see a distinction between how a game is played vs RAW. And discussing those two things are two different conversations. Again, I urge you not to specifically misrepresent my stance in such a directly incorrect way. Directly incorrect.
Are you asking why they continue to write new books? Uh... they run a business.
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 trying to figure out who has a bet going that they can get the thread page count to 30.
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)
This might help, or it might further confuse things (Jeremy Crawford via Twitter):
The phrasing here roughly implies that teleportation is a *magical effect* that happens *to* the target, not something they are *doing*, per se.
Willy the Wizard "Casts Teleport" and is moved 20ft, he doesn't perform the action of teleporting.
Intervening obstacles are rendered irrelevant. Whether it's a wall, opportunity attack, or a non-teleport specific triggerable effect, it doesn't come into play.
Effects that are contingent upon a creature entering an area continue to apply, because it takes place after the instantaneous effect of teleportation occurs. It is based on a novel position state, not transience.
Edit: As a truly instantaneous effect, there is no point at which it is happening. You can willingly accept the effect of a spell, but there is no point at which a character is "willingly teleporting", because it is non-temporal.
It'd be nice to have the url link to that quote.
Note the use of the term "moving" in reference to Teleporting. Note also that it moves you from one place to another.
In other words, it moves you some distance other than 0 feet.
This is more evidence that Teleportation is movement (without needing to be a Movement Type, which no one claims it is).
On my phone, so it's hard to do formatting. Either search it verbatim, or use: "5e Is teleportation considered movement Jeremy Crawford".
There's a difference between using natural language to interpret what the rules say, and "deviating" from the rules.
Changing the rules (such as "I think everyone should re-roll initiative every round, instead of once at the start of combat." ) -- that's a deviation, a house rule.
Reading "You vanish and appear up to 30 feet away" as "not moving, or at least moving 0 feet because I didn't use any speed to move" is an interpretation.
And it is completely rational to interpret vanishing and reappearing some distance away as having moved that distance, using the normal natural understanding of "to move".