Folks have accused Rav of arguing this cause without a justifiable end goal application of it, but from where I sit, it’s even worse to disagree with them but then come down ruling in a contradictory way when faced with a play scenario. What gives Regent?
I mean, what did you expect to happen after hundreds of posts of this [PRE-DELETED]. Of course folks are going to end up contradicting themselves. The actual subject of the thread ceased to be the topic of conversation days ago, and now it's just a game of "Let's Get Rav To Admit They're Wrong", which of course will never happen
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Folks have accused Rav of arguing this cause without a justifiable end goal application of it, but from where I sit, it’s even worse to disagree with them but then come down ruling in a contradictory way when faced with a play scenario. What gives Regent?
I mean, what did you expect to happen after hundreds of posts of this [PRE-DELETED]. Of course folks are going to end up contradicting themselves. The actual subject of the thread ceased to be the topic of conversation days ago, and now it's just a game of "Let's Get Rav To Admit They're Wrong", which of course will never happen
The problem is, Rav is using a perspective known as "Projective Geometry" and complex linear algebra to try and prove his view that teleportation is not movement. ( amazing how less than 200 words in one post [post #109 ] defining what movement and teleportation are can spark a flood of post trying to disprove it )
By using that "Projective Geometry" perspective ( and if you go back to the example he used with taking a "path" that lead him back to his starting point ) walking, running, swimming, climbing, etc. etc. would have a movement of 0 ft, and would be contrary to the rules and mechanics of the game of D&D.
Trying to use complex numbers to say one could not "map" a "path" that a teleporting entity could use to get from point A to point B, is Rav finding the rock known as bottom. complex linear algebra allows for one to "map" a "imaginary line" on a two dimensional grid ( much like the ones people use to play the game, and is referenced within the ruleset ).
At this point, Rav is just posting to hear themselves talk. I have more than proved the question of this thread, others reading it can decide for themselves.
If you aren't where you used to be, you have moved. If where you used to be is somewhere else, you have moved. It's all moving.
Waitaminutekid.jpeg
“…in my games - no you will not take secondary damage from BB if your first change of location on your turn is via teleportation.… Is teleporting "moving 5ft or more"? No, not really. 5ft from what? To move 5ft you need to have a frame of reference and teleportation somewhat breaks those. Teleporting 30ft away from an object could be described as "moving 30ft away from that object" but not easily described as "moving 30ft”
Your response to the poll frustrated me then, and continues to. Teleportation is movement. Frames of reference are too abstract to be concerned with. BB only checks “moves” and “willingly.” But somehow, you put all that together and conclude “no”?
Folks have accused Rav of arguing this cause without a justifiable end goal application of it, but from where I sit, it’s even worse to disagree with them but then come down ruling in a contradictory way when faced with a play scenario. What gives Regent?
My argument has always been teleportation is movement and its not. It's moving, and it's not. It is motion to which many of the normal rules of motion do not apply, and that DM context-sensitive rulings are required. The statement "teleportation is not moving" is false - but so is the statement "teleportation is just like normal moving".
If you actually read or quoted my full answer to that poll you would know that I objected to the wording of the question. You would be aware that I know and did acknowledge that the RAW for BB would trigger off teleportation. I also knew and acknowledged that the RAI for BB has been confirmed to not trigger off teleportation. The reason for this dichotomy is that BB is badly written for its intention, and the reason that I allow teleportation to escape from BB is because teleporting to escape stuff is much cooler, more fun, and more intuitive than the contrary - not because teleportation isn't moving.
The situations where teleportation definitely counts is when an effect triggers or ends if you "move X ft away" from a point. Teleporting 30ft away from a point is undeniably "moving 30ft away" from that point. Thus, Teleporting is moving.
Where you need judgement is when the text is just "move X ft", or worse "move through", "move within" or "move in a straight line". In those cases you need to look at the context of the movement. You don't take damage from Teleporting through spike growth because though you moved 30ft, you did not do that movement "within" or "through" . You couldn't teleport your run up to a long jump or charge attack because there is no such thing as Teleporting in a straight line. And my vague (but unnecessary) justification for bending the trigger rules around BB is that though you have teleported 30ft away, I am not convinced that you have actually personally moved 5ft. You have moved, but you have moved without a confirmed distance moved. There are very few rules that rely on that sort of measured motion of a creature without that motion being relative to something specific. Most movement triggers are about moving into, away from, or through something else. Teleportation generally does the first two, but not the third (you could teleport "through" a barrier, but that is better translated as using teleportation to bypass a barrier). But to confirm, I don't consider this a binding rule on the interpretation of teleportational movement outside of BB, just my personal context understanding of how they intended us to implement BB, and how my games involving that spell will be most fun and intuitively comprehensible.
The reason I objected to that poll question is because most people were just answering the question "does teleportation trigger BB?", and they were answering no for any number of reasons that were not "because teleportation is not moving".
I object to the BB scenario being the illustrative scenario because it is a bad scenario. If you have any questions about how I would rule teleportation works in other scenarios, feel free to ask. I can guarantee you that my answer will never be based on the false assertion that "teleportation isn't moving".
I agree with the spirit of your objection (the need to find context whether trigger movement is referring to distance traveled, or the motion of a body walking/running/flying/etc.). What I don’t get is finding that context in a short and straightforward spell like BB. Like… long jumps, the context for “move 10 feet in a straight line (in a way that builds momentum for your jump)” is right there. Spike growth, not even context needed, explicitly we’re talking about stepping on spikes ground from square to square. But booming blade? The spell describes a sheathe of energy around the character in that space, that will harm them if they move (from that space). The only thing unclear about that is “willing,” and I am 100% sure that that is a blatant narrative contradiction that they inserted merely to “balance” the spell… but even enforcing it as RAW, it doesn’t change that the spells narrative context is “don’t leave this square,” not “don’t use your legs to walk” or something. It also plainly isn’t “don’t get more than 5 feet from this guy”, because they can leave after the attack without ending the effect, or you can try to grapple and drag them with you without that being a defense.
all that said, I do understand your context-based approach to trying to interpret “why” movement is a trigger, I just think it’s usually so debatable that a DM would be better off just using an all-inclusive “moves” in 99% of cases to give the player the benefit of the doubt.
Chicken, you’ve highlighted my biggest issue with the spell, that “booming” energy is not a thing with other references you can pull from, the spell gives no indication of what you being sheathed in it is, and the willing requirement adds all sort of issue with interpretation. If the energy triggers when you leave the square, does it trigger by you penetrating the sheath? Teleporting would bypass that. Does it instead sheath just your body and trigger on exertion to move 5 feet? Teleporting doesn’t require that kind of exertion. Is teleporting truly willing? Heck if I know, it doesn’t exist in real life. The spell as written gives me as a DM no narrative to describe how the singular references of booming energy, sheathed, and willing work, so I have to make it up out of whole cloth using the little we have, which is our own interpretation of those three things plus a 5 foot movement trigger
Exactly: it gives you no context, other than "moves". So, why pick the narrowest possible interpretation of "moves," to the detriment of your player? That's adversarial DMing at its worst.
The only piece of convincing I needed was that the game designers explicitly addressed it in a list of excluded movement triggers when covering Attacks of Opportunity, which means that they understand it to be equivalent to movement with respect to "common english". (Regardless of any reasonable arguements to the contrary.)
To me, that means that Teleportation is movement by RAW, and that it is exceptional by RAI.
Is Teleportation movement with respect to game terms? Yes.
Will I let it bypass effects that trigger on movement? Absolutely, where it is reasonable to do so.
Teleportation is movement in the sense that you are changing location and can both leave one square and enter another, but it does not use up your "Movement" resource.
The only piece of convincing I needed was that the game designers explicitly addressed it in a list of excluded movement triggers when covering Attacks of Opportunity, which means that they understand it to be equivalent to movement with respect to "common english". (Regardless of any reasonable arguements to the contrary.)
To me, that means that Teleportation is movement by RAW, and that it is exceptional by RAI.
Is Teleportation movement with respect to game terms? Yes.
Will I let it bypass effects that trigger on movement? Absolutely, where it is reasonable to do so.
Interestingly, this was one of the things that convinced me that you cannot escape BB with Teleport ;) The reason you can escape OA's with Teleport is because teleport takes you out of reach of the enemy without giving them time to react. It's a clear specific exception to the general rule on OA's. (Just the same as Disengage is). Since BB doesn't give a similar specific exception, I'm forced to conclude that Teleport doesn't let you escape BB.
By the written rules, Misty Step shouldn't escape Booming Blade, but as a 2nd level spell that is specifically used to get out of sticky situations, I'm fine with it anyway.
A cantrip probably shouldn't be able to lock down teleportation unless it calls it out specifically.
By the written rules, Misty Step shouldn't escape Booming Blade, but as a 2nd level spell that is specifically used to get out of sticky situations, I'm fine with it anyway.
A cantrip probably shouldn't be able to lock down teleportation unless it calls it out specifically.
Oh sure. You can use whatever version you like at your table. I'm not going to tell you how to run your game. (To be fair though, BB doesn't stop you from moving, it only does damage.. And in fact, given how often it is the PCs using BB vs the enemies, I'm fine with having it work to do some damage against a teleporting enemy at my table. Given how a teleporting enemy is likely to be hard to pin down anyway .. )
The only piece of convincing I needed was that the game designers explicitly addressed it in a list of excluded movement triggers when covering Attacks of Opportunity, which means that they understand it to be equivalent to movement with respect to "common english". (Regardless of any reasonable arguements to the contrary.)
To me, that means that Teleportation is movement by RAW, and that it is exceptional by RAI.
Is Teleportation movement with respect to game terms? Yes.
Will I let it bypass effects that trigger on movement? Absolutely, where it is reasonable to do so.
Interestingly, this was one of the things that convinced me that you cannot escape BB with Teleport ;) The reason you can escape OA's with Teleport is because teleport takes you out of reach of the enemy without giving them time to react. It's a clear specific exception to the general rule on OA's. (Just the same as Disengage is). Since BB doesn't give a similar specific exception, I'm forced to conclude that Teleport doesn't let you escape BB.
The reason teleportation doesn't provoke opportunity attacks is because the rules explicitly say so. The reason behind the rule might have to do with reaction time but we don't know. Personally I don't think so, because a character with the Warcaster feat might very well still be able to hit the target after it left the warcaster's reach.
Another interesting angle to consider is whether or not the Battle Master's Brace Maneuver triggers when a creature teleports into their reach. This should essentially work the exact same way as the effect of the Polearm Master feat , but without exempting teleportation from triggering the effect. Personally, I'd say teleportation into reach triggers the Brace reaction.
Likewise if the rules regarding opportunity attacks hadn't explicitly stated teleportation as a non-trigger, I'd say teleportation triggered the effect. However the trigger would occur after the creature teleported out of reach (as triggering an effect before the trigger occurs is a paradox), thus in most cases be moot. The only exception I can see would be a creature with the Warcaster feat as it allows the caster to target a creature outside of its reach.
Opportunity Attacks You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
Polearm Master While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
Brace When a creature you can see moves into the reach you have with the melee weapon you’re wielding, you can use your reaction to expend one superiority die and make one attack against the creature, using that weapon. If the attack hits, add the superiority die to the weapon’s damage roll.
Reactions slightly preceding their triggers is not unusual, such as every time you make an OA against a creature 5 feet away to punish them for moving... 10 feet away.
Reactions slightly preceding their triggers is not unusual, such as every time you make an OA against a creature 5 feet away to punish them for moving... 10 feet away.
I agree, but in the case of teleportation we are not talking about being "slightly" ahead. The caster goes from within reach to 500 feet away instantaneously without signifying movement or intention of movement at all. Would you still allow a character to make an opportunity attack against the teleporting individual if the teleportation spell got counterspelled? Assuming that teleportation was not specified in opportunity attack rules of course.
If the line about teleportation not triggering OAs was not printed, then yes, when the hostile creature is in the process of dematerializing/whatever to move out of reach, "right before" that completes, an OA would take place.
I'm less concerned with miliseconds of simulation, than I am with combat flowing the way the game system describes. There are any number of realism sacrifices in D&D (even putting aside magic itself), and so if a feature told me I could take an OA, I would take the OA, not worrying about things like reaction times, or how/why an opportunity attacker can divine the intent of magic that isn't yet complete.
Yeah, if someone hasn't "physically traversed the space between two points" then calling the line between those two point their "path" is just inaccurate. That's exactly my position.
In this context, I'm saying measuring the "arbitrary line" between your start/stop coordinates doesn't actually mean you're measuring the path the person took nor are you measuring how far they moved. (That's why I'm calling it "arbitrary")
So I agree with the first half of your last sentence (that the start and stop positions don't define the path), but not that they don't define a distance. I think that's the key distinction in between our points of view. It seems to me that you do not think there ought to be a difference between "defining the path" and "determining the distance moved." And to me, it seems like you're going to a lot of effort to try to make one thing a subset of the other.
If you're measuring their start vs stop position you're not measuring how far they moved. How far they moved is identical to the distance of their path.
What you're measuring is instead how far they adjusted their position after a set amount of time. This value has more to it than simply them "moving".
For example, if someone runs a half circle that end exactly 10 ft away from their starting position saying "they moved 10 ft" is wildly inaccurate. They moved more than that! They moved half the circumference of a circle and merely ended up 10ft away from their starting position. They moved roughly 15ft.
If you're measuring something other than their actual path, you're not measuring how far they moved. You're measuring some arbitrary difference between two positions they've existed at with no regard to how they got to those positions.
Imagine, if you will, you arrive home after a long and active day running around town, and someone askes you how far you moved today. Would you say "I moved 10 ft, because I started my day 10ft away from my current position"? Uh, no. That'd be silly. You'd estimate the path you took to count up how far you moved throughout the day.
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.
Another interesting angle to consider is whether or not the Battle Master's Brace Maneuver triggers when a creature teleports into their reach. This should essentially work the exact same way as the effect of the Polearm Master feat , but without exempting teleportation from triggering the effect. Personally, I'd say teleportation into reach triggers the Brace reaction.
Brace When a creature you can see moves into the reach you have with the melee weapon you’re wielding, you can use your reaction to expend one superiority die and make one attack against the creature, using that weapon. If the attack hits, add the superiority die to the weapon’s damage roll.
Brace is definitely a curious one. Even though it doesn't use the word, it is an opportunity attack. You are using your reaction to make a melee attack against the provoking creature. I would have a very hard time treating it differently.
Opportunity Attacks You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
noun: A route, course, or track along which something moves.
this is not the same as "physically traversed the space between two points".
"along which something moves."
Remember this definition. It is your own definition, we can use it. Along which something moves. That is a path. Fine. Good.
How far does he move from his perspective. If you traced HIS path. If someone teleports into a space 20ft away. How far did he move, from his perspective. Not to an observer's perspective. To his perspective.
His perspective is the point he picks to define the straight path to the point he will travel to, if that point is 20ft away then he will move 20ft to that point from his own perspective that the space he moved into is different from the space he was in.
Huh, you are serious. You think teleporting moves through the space between the 2 points? Wild.
I never said he moved "Through" the space between the 2 points while teleporting I said his perspective is that the space he moved into (the point he picked to travel to) is different from the space he was in ( the point he started from ) thus defining the "path" that was traveled and defining the distance traveled.
Hmm. This path, between A and B that he didn't actually go through. Is this a line "along which he moves"? Hmm, it isn't tho. He never moved along that path.
The place he started and the place he ended had no distance between them that he needed to cross. From his perspective the distance between A and B is 0. Why? How? That's impossible!? Yeah, you're right... teleportation is impossible.
But from his perspective he didn't move at all. When you trace his path he didn't move at all. From his perspective everything else shifted, and shifted immediately.
And this is where you misunderstand, as the place he ended is different from the place he started, and from his own perspective he has moved 20ft using teleportation. His "path" is the line he "envisioned" from his starting place to the place he will end in, and the distance is the measure of space between the starting place and the ending place.
What is this "line he envisioned" you keep going off about my man? Where are you coming up with this stuff? Is from some scifi book or other fantasy stories you've read somewhere or something?
Envision the path the teleporting guy takes. Picture it.
OK, I envision like others the path the teleporting guy takes is a straight line.
It's ok if you are confused, running in circles within your own logic can do that, take a deep breath and know myself and others can help you break the logic paradox your in.
I'm not confused about the rules, just about your posts. You say his path is the direct line between A and B even if that isn't the path he took between A and B. You say that he traveled that path even though he didn't move between the spaces that path goes through. You say that's the path he took even if that isn't the route along which he moved.
I'd advise we stick to the forum rules, and not really call one another out for being "confused" or "running in circles within our own logic". Keep it positive, chap. We're just discussing something about a game.
If a guy walked 30ft I could draw this line fore you and show you his exact path. Even if it was meandering and erratic. We could draw it out and mark on the map every single last foot he travelled.
Can you do that for the guy who teleported 30ft? No? Hmm. Odd. All you have on that map is 2 points with no path between them. That is a line that is 0 ft long.
If you or I draw a line from the point where one starts their teleportation to where one ends after teleporting, and the distance between those two points is greater than 0, that is the distance one has traveled, and the "path" that was taken even if the intervening space between is never traversed.
Everything up to the red part is fine. The red is where things go wrong. They never travel that path. That isn't their path. They don't go through those spaces because that isn't their path. Not their Route. And not their Course. They do not move along that path any more than they move along any path at all.
Even taking our opinions about moving, movement, and all that aside, this still remains true. This doesn't even meet your own provided definition above. An arbitrary straight line between A and B is not their path. They did not take that route to get there. Arguments about anything else aside, genuinely, you need to reevaluate this specific position and get your definitions in order. That isn't their "path".
You familiar with imaginary numbers? They're pretty fun. Did you know you can actually write the equations for the point that two lines that don't ever actually intersect one another... do intersect? Like I said, these equations are fun, and they use imaginary numbers. Equations for all sorts of weird impossible stuff, like where new York city and Los Angeles connect to one another. There is an imaginary equation for that coordinate. A place that doesn't exist. Fun stuff, fun concept. Anyway, for those not following along an imaginary number is basically just anything including a square root of -1. They're symbolized with just a lowercase i. Anyway. The path between A and B that the teleporting character took is similar to these imaginary number equations, because the path he took between point A and B doesn't actually exist either. It is an imaginary path. The actual direct path between them isn't how he got there. He took the much...much shorter imaginary path where point A and point B had no distance between them at all. That's how he got there. So, he moved 0 ft.
I do believe you need to go back and study your algebra, for i^2 = -1 ( that's i squared equals negative one, because you can't take the square root of a negative number, because i alone is undefined )
Comedy. Gold.
Yes, my man, i^2=-1. So true. Now, solve for i.
Rav, your stuck in the notion that Teleportation is not movement because it uses no speed to do so.
I am indeed stuck in the notion what the PHB says is indeed the rules movement, for sure.
You also can not admit to yourself that teleporting is leaving one space to enter another different space, to do so would undermine your belief the RAW is absolute and inflexible.
"Admit" to myself? Teleporting is vanishing from one space and appearing in another. But, on my belief? RAW is absolute and inflexible. That's 100% true. RAW means rules as written and you can't change the words that appear on the pages of the rulebooks no matter how much you want to. So, when discussing RAW you're pretty hamstrung in creative imagination. The words just are the words that are there.
We all play D&D within the big-picture framework of the game-rules, and some of us have different ways at looking at that foundation. I urge you to step back from the fine print and look at the big picture, and enjoy the view.
I don't make rulings, while in game, entirely based on RAW. I doubt anyone does. Even if they think they do. But, if I'm going to pop onto a discussion forum specifically about the Rules and Mechanics of the game you can BET I'm going to stick strictly to the Rules as Written in my analysis. That's what we're talking about here. If I just started going off on how I'd rather it worked because simply I wanna have it work that way regardless what the book says... then... I should be having that chat over in the Homebrew forum. That's why, here, you should stick to discussing the rules themselves.
And, I promise I have plenty of disagreements with certain rules and do indeed homebrew them. But I recognize when I'm doing this by understanding the RAW itself. So even if you plan on doing your own thing, it is still helpful to understand what the original RAW was anyway.
We have shown you our view, ether take it for what it's worth or don't, I personally don't care because I know you can never see the game as others do.
Best of luck in your games, and may the dice be ever in your favor.
They never are! That's why the Lucky Feat is so critical. But yeah, carry on carrying on.
Please do reevaluate what a "path" is though. If someone doesn't actually go that way, that isn't their path.
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.
Be careful, that highlighted sentence is only an instruction on how to use that feature, not its definition. 5e spends most of its text telling you what you can do, not what things are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I mean, what did you expect to happen after hundreds of posts of this [PRE-DELETED]. Of course folks are going to end up contradicting themselves. The actual subject of the thread ceased to be the topic of conversation days ago, and now it's just a game of "Let's Get Rav To Admit They're Wrong", which of course will never happen
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The problem is, Rav is using a perspective known as "Projective Geometry" and complex linear algebra to try and prove his view that teleportation is not movement. ( amazing how less than 200 words in one post [post #109 ] defining what movement and teleportation are can spark a flood of post trying to disprove it )
By using that "Projective Geometry" perspective ( and if you go back to the example he used with taking a "path" that lead him back to his starting point ) walking, running, swimming, climbing, etc. etc. would have a movement of 0 ft, and would be contrary to the rules and mechanics of the game of D&D.
Trying to use complex numbers to say one could not "map" a "path" that a teleporting entity could use to get from point A to point B, is Rav finding the rock known as bottom. complex linear algebra allows for one to "map" a "imaginary line" on a two dimensional grid ( much like the ones people use to play the game, and is referenced within the ruleset ).
At this point, Rav is just posting to hear themselves talk. I have more than proved the question of this thread, others reading it can decide for themselves.
My argument has always been teleportation is movement and its not. It's moving, and it's not. It is motion to which many of the normal rules of motion do not apply, and that DM context-sensitive rulings are required. The statement "teleportation is not moving" is false - but so is the statement "teleportation is just like normal moving".
If you actually read or quoted my full answer to that poll you would know that I objected to the wording of the question. You would be aware that I know and did acknowledge that the RAW for BB would trigger off teleportation. I also knew and acknowledged that the RAI for BB has been confirmed to not trigger off teleportation. The reason for this dichotomy is that BB is badly written for its intention, and the reason that I allow teleportation to escape from BB is because teleporting to escape stuff is much cooler, more fun, and more intuitive than the contrary - not because teleportation isn't moving.
The situations where teleportation definitely counts is when an effect triggers or ends if you "move X ft away" from a point. Teleporting 30ft away from a point is undeniably "moving 30ft away" from that point. Thus, Teleporting is moving.
Where you need judgement is when the text is just "move X ft", or worse "move through", "move within" or "move in a straight line". In those cases you need to look at the context of the movement. You don't take damage from Teleporting through spike growth because though you moved 30ft, you did not do that movement "within" or "through" . You couldn't teleport your run up to a long jump or charge attack because there is no such thing as Teleporting in a straight line. And my vague (but unnecessary) justification for bending the trigger rules around BB is that though you have teleported 30ft away, I am not convinced that you have actually personally moved 5ft. You have moved, but you have moved without a confirmed distance moved. There are very few rules that rely on that sort of measured motion of a creature without that motion being relative to something specific. Most movement triggers are about moving into, away from, or through something else. Teleportation generally does the first two, but not the third (you could teleport "through" a barrier, but that is better translated as using teleportation to bypass a barrier). But to confirm, I don't consider this a binding rule on the interpretation of teleportational movement outside of BB, just my personal context understanding of how they intended us to implement BB, and how my games involving that spell will be most fun and intuitively comprehensible.
The reason I objected to that poll question is because most people were just answering the question "does teleportation trigger BB?", and they were answering no for any number of reasons that were not "because teleportation is not moving".
I object to the BB scenario being the illustrative scenario because it is a bad scenario. If you have any questions about how I would rule teleportation works in other scenarios, feel free to ask. I can guarantee you that my answer will never be based on the false assertion that "teleportation isn't moving".
I agree with the spirit of your objection (the need to find context whether trigger movement is referring to distance traveled, or the motion of a body walking/running/flying/etc.). What I don’t get is finding that context in a short and straightforward spell like BB. Like… long jumps, the context for “move 10 feet in a straight line (in a way that builds momentum for your jump)” is right there. Spike growth, not even context needed, explicitly we’re talking about stepping on spikes ground from square to square. But booming blade? The spell describes a sheathe of energy around the character in that space, that will harm them if they move (from that space). The only thing unclear about that is “willing,” and I am 100% sure that that is a blatant narrative contradiction that they inserted merely to “balance” the spell… but even enforcing it as RAW, it doesn’t change that the spells narrative context is “don’t leave this square,” not “don’t use your legs to walk” or something. It also plainly isn’t “don’t get more than 5 feet from this guy”, because they can leave after the attack without ending the effect, or you can try to grapple and drag them with you without that being a defense.
all that said, I do understand your context-based approach to trying to interpret “why” movement is a trigger, I just think it’s usually so debatable that a DM would be better off just using an all-inclusive “moves” in 99% of cases to give the player the benefit of the doubt.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Chicken, you’ve highlighted my biggest issue with the spell, that “booming” energy is not a thing with other references you can pull from, the spell gives no indication of what you being sheathed in it is, and the willing requirement adds all sort of issue with interpretation. If the energy triggers when you leave the square, does it trigger by you penetrating the sheath? Teleporting would bypass that. Does it instead sheath just your body and trigger on exertion to move 5 feet? Teleporting doesn’t require that kind of exertion. Is teleporting truly willing? Heck if I know, it doesn’t exist in real life. The spell as written gives me as a DM no narrative to describe how the singular references of booming energy, sheathed, and willing work, so I have to make it up out of whole cloth using the little we have, which is our own interpretation of those three things plus a 5 foot movement trigger
Exactly: it gives you no context, other than "moves". So, why pick the narrowest possible interpretation of "moves," to the detriment of your player? That's adversarial DMing at its worst.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The only piece of convincing I needed was that the game designers explicitly addressed it in a list of excluded movement triggers when covering Attacks of Opportunity, which means that they understand it to be equivalent to movement with respect to "common english". (Regardless of any reasonable arguements to the contrary.)
To me, that means that Teleportation is movement by RAW, and that it is exceptional by RAI.
Is Teleportation movement with respect to game terms? Yes.
Will I let it bypass effects that trigger on movement? Absolutely, where it is reasonable to do so.
Teleportation is movement in the sense that you are changing location and can both leave one square and enter another, but it does not use up your "Movement" resource.
Interestingly, this was one of the things that convinced me that you cannot escape BB with Teleport ;)
The reason you can escape OA's with Teleport is because teleport takes you out of reach of the enemy without giving them time to react. It's a clear specific exception to the general rule on OA's. (Just the same as Disengage is).
Since BB doesn't give a similar specific exception, I'm forced to conclude that Teleport doesn't let you escape BB.
That's my RAW/RAI distinction.
By the written rules, Misty Step shouldn't escape Booming Blade, but as a 2nd level spell that is specifically used to get out of sticky situations, I'm fine with it anyway.
A cantrip probably shouldn't be able to lock down teleportation unless it calls it out specifically.
Oh sure. You can use whatever version you like at your table. I'm not going to tell you how to run your game.
(To be fair though, BB doesn't stop you from moving, it only does damage.. And in fact, given how often it is the PCs using BB vs the enemies, I'm fine with having it work to do some damage against a teleporting enemy at my table. Given how a teleporting enemy is likely to be hard to pin down anyway .. )
The reason teleportation doesn't provoke opportunity attacks is because the rules explicitly say so. The reason behind the rule might have to do with reaction time but we don't know. Personally I don't think so, because a character with the Warcaster feat might very well still be able to hit the target after it left the warcaster's reach.
Another interesting angle to consider is whether or not the Battle Master's Brace Maneuver triggers when a creature teleports into their reach. This should essentially work the exact same way as the effect of the Polearm Master feat , but without exempting teleportation from triggering the effect.
Personally, I'd say teleportation into reach triggers the Brace reaction.
Likewise if the rules regarding opportunity attacks hadn't explicitly stated teleportation as a non-trigger, I'd say teleportation triggered the effect. However the trigger would occur after the creature teleported out of reach (as triggering an effect before the trigger occurs is a paradox), thus in most cases be moot. The only exception I can see would be a creature with the Warcaster feat as it allows the caster to target a creature outside of its reach.
Reactions slightly preceding their triggers is not unusual, such as every time you make an OA against a creature 5 feet away to punish them for moving... 10 feet away.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree, but in the case of teleportation we are not talking about being "slightly" ahead. The caster goes from within reach to 500 feet away instantaneously without signifying movement or intention of movement at all. Would you still allow a character to make an opportunity attack against the teleporting individual if the teleportation spell got counterspelled? Assuming that teleportation was not specified in opportunity attack rules of course.
If the line about teleportation not triggering OAs was not printed, then yes, when the hostile creature is in the process of dematerializing/whatever to move out of reach, "right before" that completes, an OA would take place.
I'm less concerned with miliseconds of simulation, than I am with combat flowing the way the game system describes. There are any number of realism sacrifices in D&D (even putting aside magic itself), and so if a feature told me I could take an OA, I would take the OA, not worrying about things like reaction times, or how/why an opportunity attacker can divine the intent of magic that isn't yet complete.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If you're measuring their start vs stop position you're not measuring how far they moved. How far they moved is identical to the distance of their path.
What you're measuring is instead how far they adjusted their position after a set amount of time. This value has more to it than simply them "moving".
For example, if someone runs a half circle that end exactly 10 ft away from their starting position saying "they moved 10 ft" is wildly inaccurate. They moved more than that! They moved half the circumference of a circle and merely ended up 10ft away from their starting position. They moved roughly 15ft.
If you're measuring something other than their actual path, you're not measuring how far they moved. You're measuring some arbitrary difference between two positions they've existed at with no regard to how they got to those positions.
Imagine, if you will, you arrive home after a long and active day running around town, and someone askes you how far you moved today. Would you say "I moved 10 ft, because I started my day 10ft away from my current position"? Uh, no. That'd be silly. You'd estimate the path you took to count up how far you moved throughout the day.
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.
Brace is definitely a curious one. Even though it doesn't use the word, it is an opportunity attack. You are using your reaction to make a melee attack against the provoking creature. I would have a very hard time treating it differently.
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)
It absolutely is not an Opportunity Attack. It is a reaction melee weapon attack you make when a creature moves into reach.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"along which something moves."
Remember this definition. It is your own definition, we can use it. Along which something moves. That is a path. Fine. Good.
Hmm. This path, between A and B that he didn't actually go through. Is this a line "along which he moves"? Hmm, it isn't tho. He never moved along that path.
I'm not confused about the rules, just about your posts. You say his path is the direct line between A and B even if that isn't the path he took between A and B. You say that he traveled that path even though he didn't move between the spaces that path goes through. You say that's the path he took even if that isn't the route along which he moved.
I'd advise we stick to the forum rules, and not really call one another out for being "confused" or "running in circles within our own logic". Keep it positive, chap. We're just discussing something about a game.
Everything up to the red part is fine. The red is where things go wrong. They never travel that path. That isn't their path. They don't go through those spaces because that isn't their path. Not their Route. And not their Course. They do not move along that path any more than they move along any path at all.
Even taking our opinions about moving, movement, and all that aside, this still remains true. This doesn't even meet your own provided definition above. An arbitrary straight line between A and B is not their path. They did not take that route to get there. Arguments about anything else aside, genuinely, you need to reevaluate this specific position and get your definitions in order. That isn't their "path".
Comedy. Gold.
Yes, my man, i^2=-1. So true. Now, solve for i.
I am indeed stuck in the notion what the PHB says is indeed the rules movement, for sure.
"Admit" to myself? Teleporting is vanishing from one space and appearing in another. But, on my belief? RAW is absolute and inflexible. That's 100% true. RAW means rules as written and you can't change the words that appear on the pages of the rulebooks no matter how much you want to. So, when discussing RAW you're pretty hamstrung in creative imagination. The words just are the words that are there.
I don't make rulings, while in game, entirely based on RAW. I doubt anyone does. Even if they think they do. But, if I'm going to pop onto a discussion forum specifically about the Rules and Mechanics of the game you can BET I'm going to stick strictly to the Rules as Written in my analysis. That's what we're talking about here. If I just started going off on how I'd rather it worked because simply I wanna have it work that way regardless what the book says... then... I should be having that chat over in the Homebrew forum. That's why, here, you should stick to discussing the rules themselves.
And, I promise I have plenty of disagreements with certain rules and do indeed homebrew them. But I recognize when I'm doing this by understanding the RAW itself. So even if you plan on doing your own thing, it is still helpful to understand what the original RAW was anyway.
They never are! That's why the Lucky Feat is so critical. But yeah, carry on carrying on.
Please do reevaluate what a "path" is though. If someone doesn't actually go that way, that isn't their path.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Be careful, that highlighted sentence is only an instruction on how to use that feature, not its definition. 5e spends most of its text telling you what you can do, not what things are.