Don't you think, if the intent was for these "synonyms" was to be interchangeable, that we'd just have the word "move" used over and over again? Don't you think there wouldn't even be a discussion on this?
After almost 7 years of publication, the language is virtually unchanged. It costs money to print these words. It costs ink, paper, and layout artists. And you expect us to believe that WotC went with bigger words, more flowery language, for the hell of it?
If you buy into this position, you're accusing them of wasteful incompetence in order to make your point.
Don't you think, if the intent was for these "synonyms" was to be interchangeable, that we'd just have the word "move" used over and over again? Don't you think there wouldn't even be a discussion on this?
After almost 7 years of publication, the language is virtually unchanged. It costs money to print these words. It costs ink, paper, and layout artists. And you expect us to believe that WotC went with bigger words, more flowery language, for the hell of it?
If you buy into this position, you're accusing them of wasteful incompetence in order to make your point.
No, because “move” is a generic. And it’s not how we talk in real life. It is considered bad writing to only use the same word over and over, especially when a synonymous word provides greater clarity. Any word or verb that describes motion could be synonymous with “move” in the right context, but many of those words also convey other information too that actually makes them more efficient to use than the generic “move”. It makes since for Thorn Whip to “pull” and Repelling Blast to “push” because those synonyms also help convey direction. It makes since to use “carry” or “transport” when you want to convey movement via another creature, effect, or object. Saying “I fall” conveys the same meaning in fewer words than “I move down due to gravity at 500 feet per round”, and it makes sense and is more efficient to use terms that are more familiar to an audience, like “instantly transports” to describe unfamiliar terms like teleport, than it is to say “move instantly in a special manner by a force or effect that doesn’t cross the spaces in between”. It also makes sense, when an effect doesn’t care about direction, or if you are being conveyed by another creature, or any other descriptor, to use the generic “move”, but most of the time, other words, while synonymous, are clearer.
No, the word move has a specific meaning in the rules. There's an entire section in Chapter 9 dedicated to describing just what a move is and how it works. Move and movement are inseparable. And move is consistently used to refer to a creature expending speed; be it willing or compelled. If move was intended to include more than this, and also include teleportation, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. They'd have made it crystal clear somewhere in the book. They wouldn't have discretely buried it in the rules for being prone.
And, as it stands, that's your best evidence. A single sentence about moving while prone. And that's not even compelling. You're entire argument is predicated on a subtlety. And, as we've already covered, WotC doesn't do subtle. There are no secret or hidden rules. And why there? It's such an obscure place. If you're claiming this was the intent, that teleporting is the same moving, wouldn't it be better served elsewhere? Wouldn't it be clearly expressed elsewhere and not merely inference?
Or are you claiming it was a mistake; that WotC didn't intend this but it slipped through anyway? Because, if the intent was for teleportation to be moving, we'd have this...
This spell moves you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.
...instead of this.
This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.
The first reference to teleporting is on page 75. We don't get a working definition of what that means until page 281. But we can definitive say it's not moving. Because that's not the word being used. It doesn't matter what you think transport means or is a synonym for. Because I can look up Dictionary.com, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, and more. And they don't say what you say. And I'm too cheap to pay for a subscription to the OED, so while they are the most complete they're also the least accessible. And that's not the standard of measure we should be holding ourselves, or WotC, to.
No, the word move has a specific meaning in the rules. There's an entire section in Chapter 9 dedicated to describing just what a move is and how it works. Move and movement are inseparable. And move is consistently used to refer to a creature expending speed; be it willing or compelled.
1) Chapter 9 is rules for Combat (which is why it is helpfully labeled 'Combat'), not the game as a whole. Chapter 8 also has a Movement section that details travel paces that differ from your speed. Are you saying those are not movement?
2) "Move" is used in numerous locations to not mean the use of speed as are the movement types listed in chapter 9; it is not a "special" term unless it 1) is bolded in the text, 2) is under a subheading or heading specific to "movement", or 3) also references your speed in the passage in question. Thats just basic reading comprehension. As for examples that don't do that, and don't conform to what you are saying move is: telekinesis allows you to "move" a creature or object without using their (or your) speed. cloudkill "moves" 10' per round, automatically. the hand created by arcane hand can both be "moved" using your bonus action (no reference or use of speed) and automatically "moves" itself during the Interposing Hand ability to position itself between you and the target. blade of disaster and spiritual weapon are able to be "moved" the same way as Arcane Hand, as is the spirit beast/fey created by healing spirit. the duplicates of mirror image "move" with you (while using 0 movement or reference to a distance or speed at all). Catapult causes an object to "fly" which while it does not use "move" is using a word that is a type of movement. Many illusion spells "move" or allow you to "move" the created illusions. Outside of spells, "move" is used in the Monk - Drunken Master section to describe the type of movements the monk makes as part of that subclass, right in the intro paragraph. The [feat]telekinetic[/feat] says you can "move" things with your mind. The [feat]crusher[/feat] allows you to "move" a creature you hit 5 feet (does not use your speed, their speed, and functionally works like the "push" and "pull" of other effects). the immovable rod reads the opposite, saying the rod cannot "move" when activated. driftglobes follow you when you move, but their own movement does not use or reference a speed explicitly. the masquerade tattoo can be "moved" to another area of your skin....I can do more, but you get the point. "Move" is not a "special" term that only means the one thing you think it means.
3) if you expand the list to include the verbs that also mean move, this list expands significantly. Reading the rules in plain english, as is the way you are supposed to, would consider these synonymous verbs to also mean "move"
If move was intended to include more than this, and also include teleportation, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. They'd have made it crystal clear somewhere in the book. They wouldn't have discretely buried it in the rules for being prone.
It isn't "buried". The writers assume you use plain english to read the rules. There are very few instances of teleportation in the rules to begin with, and all of them that include any description of what teleportation is (some don't include any clarifying language), infer that it is moving directly, like the rule for prone, or use language that in plain english also infers moving, like the spell teleport, which uses "transports"
And, as it stands, that's your best evidence. A single sentence about moving while prone. And that's not even compelling. You're entire argument is predicated on a subtlety. And, as we've already covered, WotC doesn't do subtle. There are no secret or hidden rules. And why there? It's such an obscure place. If you're claiming this was the intent, that teleporting is the same moving, wouldn't it be better served elsewhere? Wouldn't it be clearly expressed elsewhere and not merely inference?
Not if they thought the reader was familiar enough with plain english to understand what "teleport" means, or barring that, what "transport" means. I agree that the book should have a glossary, btw, but they don't, so we have to use plain english for those terms that aren't defined.
Or are you claiming it was a mistake; that WotC didn't intend this but it slipped through anyway? Because, if the intent was for teleportation to be moving, we'd have this...
This spell moves you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.
...instead of this.
This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.
The first reference to teleporting is on page 75. We don't get a working definition of what that means until page 281. But we can definitive say it's not moving. Because that's not the word being used. It doesn't matter what you think transport means or is a synonym for
It does, actually, because they use that word to define teleport in an number of places, and the rules require an understanding of plain english to interpret.
. Because I can look up Dictionary.com, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, and more. And they don't say what you say. And I'm too cheap to pay for a subscription to the OED, so while they are the most complete they're also the least accessible
Or you can Google "(word) meaning" or "(word) definition"...Google uses the OED as its basis for returning info.
. And that's not the standard of measure we should be holding ourselves, or WotC, to.
The standard I hold to them is the standard they set for themselves, which is PLAIN ENGLISH...and that says that teleportation is transport (RAW) and transport means, when reduced to one word, "move"
You keep typing out plain English as if you have a point, and you don't. The PHB has been translated into a number of languages.
Their guiding principle is natural language.
Please describe how "natural language" is different from "plain english" when the text in question is written in english. I speak english. My books are written in english. The writers wrote the original versions of the book in english. Alternately, please describe how subbing in "natural language" for "plain english" in my posts would refute any of the points I have made.
And you conveniently ignored the actual meat of my response, where I have proven, via a significant number of examples, that "move" is not always the special term you and others seem to claim it is.
It does, actually, because they use that word to define teleport in an number of places, and the rules require an understanding of plain english to interpret.
The whole point of Plain English is to be easy to understand. If you need an understanding of anything other than merely 'English' it is not Plain English.
I'm not sure what your point is, but...yes? That is why the writers used a more familiar term like "transport" to describe a potentially foreign term like "teleport". The post I was responding to was saying that the definition of "transport" doesn't matter. I was explaining that it does, because knowing what that means is key to understanding what "teleport" means to the writers. I assume more people know what "transport" means than know what "teleport" means because "transport" is a more common term with IRL applications.
The whole point of understanding a language is understanding what words mean. Some words are less commonly known than others, so the writers using a more common word to explain a less common one is not a rejection of plain english, it is an application of it.
It does, actually, because they use that word to define teleport in an number of places, and the rules require an understanding of plain english to interpret.
The whole point of Plain English is to be easy to understand. If you need an understanding of anything other than merely 'English' it is not Plain English.
I'm not sure what your point is, but...yes? That is why the writers used a more familiar term like "transport" to describe a potentially foreign term like "teleport". The post I was responding to was saying that the definition of "transport" doesn't matter. I was explaining that it does, because knowing what that means is key to understanding what "teleport" means to the writers. I assume more people know what "transport" means than know what "teleport" means because "transport" is a more common term with IRL applications.
The whole point of understanding a language is understanding what words mean. Some words are less commonly known than others, so the writers using a more common word to explain a less common one is not a rejection of plain english, it is an application of it.
And again, I simply argue back that the normal, common use of 'transport,' its common definition does not take teleporting into account because teleportation is not real.
I think you are working backwards here. "Transport" does not have to take teleportation into account. The writers have called Teleporting "instant transport". They have made the connection that teleporting is like transporting and included the subset of teleportation in the larger set of "transport". The logical path is: 1) to teleport is to be "Instantly Transported" (source, RAW). 2) To be transported is to be moved (source, natural language/plain english, previously cited by me in this thread). 3). If #1 and #2 are true, then to teleport is to be moved.
We are going around in circles here. The Devs are not going to issue a 5e 'plain English' dictionary. We should simply accept that we are using different definitions, that neither of us will convince the other side to change their views on the proper definitions to use and to simply accept that and move on.
I'm perfectly happy to stop and move on at this point, but I don't appreciate people saying that I'm "wrong" or "breaking the rules" for interpreting the rules using natural language/plain english (ie the way they are supposed to be). That we can come up with different possible interpretations is ok (I've said so in prior posts), its when people say that only their way is "correct" when its really just their interpretation that I get rankled. Anyway, best of luck to you and your games!
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".
But that's the thing. It is also rational to interpret it as not having moved that distance, since you simply appear and reappear. That some may say you moved is neither here nor there. People say false things using plain English all the time.
I didn't say it was irrational. I said that it was wrong to say that one is a " a deviation, a house rule" and the other is not. Both are interpretations, and either one might be the intended interpretation, but neither one is a house rule. Neither one is "deviating from RAW". RAW is always interpreted, because it uses language to communicate. It's not a set of computer code that is compiled down to binary. It's interpreted by people by using their understanding of the words. If interpretations differ due to prioritizing different contextual information, that's not surprising. One might even be a provably incorrect interpretation. But unless the person holding that interpretation says "yeah, I know they meant something different, but i"m changing it", then it isn't Home Brew. And just dismissing an argument by saying "you're deviating from RAW" when the whole point of the discussion was "what really is RAW here", doesn't seem like someone engaging in good faith, IMO.
RAW is interpreted based on conventions and understanding of what the natural language (and game-specific terms) mean. The designers have clearly stated that 5e was written so that the rules required the least amount of game-specific jargon to understand. This suggests to me that one ought to err on the side of a broad, natural language interpretation unless the text is clearly being more specific in that context. So in the narrow context of "Movement Types", Teleport is clearly not one. In the broad question of "does Teleport move you?", one ought not to read that in the narrow context of "movement types", but rather the least game-specific, natural language way. The answer is yes, it does.
The more game-specific narrow terms that one has to invoke to make ones argument, the less likely the 5e designers intended you to come to that conclusion (as far as I can tell). That said -- either interpretation is just that -- neither is a Home Brew, Deviation from RAW, which was the point I was addressing.
You keep typing out plain English as if you have a point, and you don't. The PHB has been translated into a number of languages.
Their guiding principle is natural language.
Please describe how "natural language" is different from "plain english" when the text in question is written in english. I speak english. My books are written in english. The writers wrote the original versions of the book in english. Alternately, please describe how subbing in "natural language" for "plain english" in my posts would refute any of the points I have made.
And you conveniently ignored the actual meat of my response, where I have proven, via a significant number of examples, that "move" is not always the special term you and others seem to claim it is.
You must spend an extra foot of movement for every foot traveled in difficult terrain.
This statement is Plain English. None of those words are fancy at all.
But it is NOT natural language. No one would ever utter that sentence in normal natural conversion.
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.
It does, actually, because they use that word to define teleport in an number of places, and the rules require an understanding of plain english to interpret.
The whole point of Plain English is to be easy to understand. If you need an understanding of anything other than merely 'English' it is not Plain English.
I'm not sure what your point is, but...yes? That is why the writers used a more familiar term like "transport" to describe a potentially foreign term like "teleport". The post I was responding to was saying that the definition of "transport" doesn't matter. I was explaining that it does, because knowing what that means is key to understanding what "teleport" means to the writers. I assume more people know what "transport" means than know what "teleport" means because "transport" is a more common term with IRL applications.
The whole point of understanding a language is understanding what words mean. Some words are less commonly known than others, so the writers using a more common word to explain a less common one is not a rejection of plain english, it is an application of it.
And again, I simply argue back that the normal, common use of 'transport,' its common definition does not take teleporting into account because teleportation is not real.
I think you are working backwards here. "Transport" does not have to take teleportation into account. The writers have called Teleporting "instant transport". They have made the connection that teleporting is like transporting and included the subset of teleportation in the larger set of "transport". The logical path is: 1) to teleport is to be "Instantly Transported" (source, RAW). 2) To be transported is to be moved (source, natural language/plain english, previously cited by me in this thread). 3). If #1 and #2 are true, then to teleport is to be moved.
2 is what you're arbitrarily adding in, unprompted by RAW to do so. That's sort of a you thing, not a rules thing.
Also, regarding 1. It does call it transport sometimes. It also calls it "instantaneously appear" sometimes. Why do you keep forgetting that? Feels like convenient amnesia is unlikely. Maybe some other reason you keep forgetting about that? Certainly if we can learn something of what the authors meant from the word transport we could learn just as much from Instantaneously Appear? No?
We are going around in circles here. The Devs are not going to issue a 5e 'plain English' dictionary. We should simply accept that we are using different definitions, that neither of us will convince the other side to change their views on the proper definitions to use and to simply accept that and move on.
I'm perfectly happy to stop and move on at this point, but I don't appreciate people saying that I'm "wrong" or "breaking the rules" for interpreting the rules using natural language/plain english (ie the way they are supposed to be). That we can come up with different possible interpretations is ok (I've said so in prior posts), its when people say that only their way is "correct" when its really just their interpretation that I get rankled. Anyway, best of luck to you and your games!
The game encourages homebrew. You're not "wrong" or "breaking the rules" if you homebrew stuff. Just make sure your players know you intend to deviate from the RAW, and how, and there shouldn't be an issue.
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.
You keep typing out plain English as if you have a point, and you don't. The PHB has been translated into a number of languages.
Their guiding principle is natural language.
Please describe how "natural language" is different from "plain english" when the text in question is written in english. I speak english. My books are written in english. The writers wrote the original versions of the book in english. Alternately, please describe how subbing in "natural language" for "plain english" in my posts would refute any of the points I have made.
And you conveniently ignored the actual meat of my response, where I have proven, via a significant number of examples, that "move" is not always the special term you and others seem to claim it is.
You must spend an extra foot of movement for every foot traveled in difficult terrain.
This statement is Plain English. None of those words are fancy at all.
But it is NOT natural language. No one would ever utter that sentence in normal natural conversion.
You realize I’m not the one who insisted on the term “natural language” right? I’ve been saying Plain English for pages
The game encourages homebrew. You're not "wrong" or "breaking the rules" if you homebrew stuff. Just make sure your players know you intend to deviate from the RAW, and how, and there shouldn't be an issue.
Sure, but that applies to everyone, like when you deviate from the RAW and have teleportation not count as movement.
No, the word move has a specific meaning in the rules. There's an entire section in Chapter 9 dedicated to describing just what a move is and how it works. Move and movement are inseparable. And move is consistently used to refer to a creature expending speed; be it willing or compelled.
1) Chapter 9 is rules for Combat (which is why it is helpfully labeled 'Combat'), not the game as a whole. Chapter 8 also has a Movement section that details travel paces that differ from your speed. Are you saying those are not movement?
2) "Move" is used in numerous locations to not mean the use of speed as are the movement types listed in chapter 9; it is not a "special" term unless it 1) is bolded in the text, 2) is under a subheading or heading specific to "movement", or 3) also references your speed in the passage in question. Thats just basic reading comprehension. As for examples that don't do that, and don't conform to what you are saying move is: telekinesis allows you to "move" a creature or object without using their (or your) speed. cloudkill "moves" 10' per round, automatically. the hand created by arcane hand can both be "moved" using your bonus action (no reference or use of speed) and automatically "moves" itself during the Interposing Hand ability to position itself between you and the target. blade of disaster and spiritual weapon are able to be "moved" the same way as Arcane Hand, as is the spirit beast/fey created by healing spirit. the duplicates of mirror image "move" with you (while using 0 movement or reference to a distance or speed at all). Catapult causes an object to "fly" which while it does not use "move" is using a word that is a type of movement. Many illusion spells "move" or allow you to "move" the created illusions. Outside of spells, "move" is used in the Monk - Drunken Master section to describe the type of movements the monk makes as part of that subclass, right in the intro paragraph. The [feat]telekinetic[/feat] says you can "move" things with your mind. The [feat]crusher[/feat] allows you to "move" a creature you hit 5 feet (does not use your speed, their speed, and functionally works like the "push" and "pull" of other effects). the immovable rod reads the opposite, saying the rod cannot "move" when activated. driftglobes follow you when you move, but their own movement does not use or reference a speed explicitly. the masquerade tattoo can be "moved" to another area of your skin....I can do more, but you get the point. "Move" is not a "special" term that only means the one thing you think it means.
3) if you expand the list to include the verbs that also mean move, this list expands significantly. Reading the rules in plain english, as is the way you are supposed to, would consider these synonymous verbs to also mean "move"
If move was intended to include more than this, and also include teleportation, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. They'd have made it crystal clear somewhere in the book. They wouldn't have discretely buried it in the rules for being prone.
It isn't "buried". The writers assume you use plain english to read the rules. There are very few instances of teleportation in the rules to begin with, and all of them that include any description of what teleportation is (some don't include any clarifying language), infer that it is moving directly, like the rule for prone, or use language that in plain english also infers moving, like the spell teleport, which uses "transports"
And, as it stands, that's your best evidence. A single sentence about moving while prone. And that's not even compelling. You're entire argument is predicated on a subtlety. And, as we've already covered, WotC doesn't do subtle. There are no secret or hidden rules. And why there? It's such an obscure place. If you're claiming this was the intent, that teleporting is the same moving, wouldn't it be better served elsewhere? Wouldn't it be clearly expressed elsewhere and not merely inference?
Not if they thought the reader was familiar enough with plain english to understand what "teleport" means, or barring that, what "transport" means. I agree that the book should have a glossary, btw, but they don't, so we have to use plain english for those terms that aren't defined.
Or are you claiming it was a mistake; that WotC didn't intend this but it slipped through anyway? Because, if the intent was for teleportation to be moving, we'd have this...
This spell moves you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.
...instead of this.
This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.
The first reference to teleporting is on page 75. We don't get a working definition of what that means until page 281. But we can definitive say it's not moving. Because that's not the word being used. It doesn't matter what you think transport means or is a synonym for
It does, actually, because they use that word to define teleport in an number of places, and the rules require an understanding of plain english to interpret.
. Because I can look up Dictionary.com, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, and more. And they don't say what you say. And I'm too cheap to pay for a subscription to the OED, so while they are the most complete they're also the least accessible
Or you can Google "(word) meaning" or "(word) definition"...Google uses the OED as its basis for returning info.
. And that's not the standard of measure we should be holding ourselves, or WotC, to.
The standard I hold to them is the standard they set for themselves, which is PLAIN ENGLISH...and that says that teleportation is transport (RAW) and transport means, when reduced to one word, "move"
I'm not going to bother formatting this. Just... all the examples of exceptions to normal movemt and move rules indeed are exceptions. And, as a matter of fact, tell you exactly how they work. These spells and effects that cause someone/something to move in a way not described in the movement rules indeed, for sure, are exceptions to those rules.
The existence of exceptions is not evidence of anything you claim it is, though.
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.
It does, actually, because they use that word to define teleport in an number of places, and the rules require an understanding of plain english to interpret.
The whole point of Plain English is to be easy to understand. If you need an understanding of anything other than merely 'English' it is not Plain English.
I'm not sure what your point is, but...yes? That is why the writers used a more familiar term like "transport" to describe a potentially foreign term like "teleport". The post I was responding to was saying that the definition of "transport" doesn't matter. I was explaining that it does, because knowing what that means is key to understanding what "teleport" means to the writers. I assume more people know what "transport" means than know what "teleport" means because "transport" is a more common term with IRL applications.
The whole point of understanding a language is understanding what words mean. Some words are less commonly known than others, so the writers using a more common word to explain a less common one is not a rejection of plain english, it is an application of it.
And again, I simply argue back that the normal, common use of 'transport,' its common definition does not take teleporting into account because teleportation is not real.
I think you are working backwards here. "Transport" does not have to take teleportation into account. The writers have called Teleporting "instant transport". They have made the connection that teleporting is like transporting and included the subset of teleportation in the larger set of "transport". The logical path is: 1) to teleport is to be "Instantly Transported" (source, RAW). 2) To be transported is to be moved (source, natural language/plain english, previously cited by me in this thread). 3). If #1 and #2 are true, then to teleport is to be moved.
2 is what you're arbitrarily adding in, unprompted by RAW to do so. That's sort of a you thing, not a rules thing.
how then, do you define “instantly transported” ? Defining words is part of understanding language, which is how you read.
Also, regarding 1. It does call it transport sometimes. It also calls it "instantaneously appear" sometimes. Why do you keep forgetting that? Feels like convenient amnesia is unlikely. Maybe some other reason you keep forgetting about that? Certainly if we can learn something of what the authors meant from the word transport we could learn just as much from Instantaneously Appear? No?
I see no reason why the combination of “disappear” and “appear” combined with a change of position is not moving, so I fail to see your point here.
We are going around in circles here. The Devs are not going to issue a 5e 'plain English' dictionary. We should simply accept that we are using different definitions, that neither of us will convince the other side to change their views on the proper definitions to use and to simply accept that and move on.
I'm perfectly happy to stop and move on at this point, but I don't appreciate people saying that I'm "wrong" or "breaking the rules" for interpreting the rules using natural language/plain english (ie the way they are supposed to be). That we can come up with different possible interpretations is ok (I've said so in prior posts), its when people say that only their way is "correct" when its really just their interpretation that I get rankled. Anyway, best of luck to you and your games!
The game encourages homebrew. You're not "wrong" or "breaking the rules" if you homebrew stuff. Just make sure your players know you intend to deviate from the RAW, and how, and there shouldn't be an issue.
I’m not “deviating” I’m “interpreting”. Just because you disagree with me does not mean I’m homebrewing or wrong.
You've ignored or dismissed the now four and a half places in the book where teleportation is mentioned as a way of moving: moving while prone, ...
Look up one comment above yours? Or the several above that? I'll just put it here for your convenience.
A prone creature's only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands up and thereby ends the condition."
"To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation."
Teleportation can be done while prone, but your only Movement option while prone is crawling. Therefore, definitively, teleportation is not Movement.
The second bullet is very clear that you can move by teleporting though. That statement clearly describes both “crawling” and “using magic such as teleportation” as ways to move.
Are you saying getting knocked prone allows anyone and everyone to simply teleport? Hot take.
See, I don't read it as giving you permission to do those things, so my reading doesn't lead to that same conclusion. That text seems to be outlining possible exceptions to a restriction, instead of granting options.
But hey, if you want to say in your games that getting knocked prone unlocks in people the magical powers of teleportation, more power to you I guess.
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.
"Plain English" means it is simple and unpretentious.
"Natural language" means the rules are written in a conversational tone. It's reflective of how languages evolve organically. But it doesn't mean there cannot be extravagance that you wouldn't find with "plain English."
The fact still remains that natural language is specifically called out as being used in their books. Your repeated insistence on things not actually presented in the books indicates you want it to be something it isn't.
At this point, I'm chalking it up to ego. The impression I have is you think this is some debate that can be won, but it's not. Not because you're incorrect, but because I think you misunderstand what an actual discourse should be. There are no points to be scored, no bragging rights to walk away with. The point is to learn from one another.
I just don't think you've made a compelling argument. Every spell you referenced still uses moves in terms of speed. Teleportation has no speed. Your own evidence argues against your point.
You've ignored or dismissed the now four and a half places in the book where teleportation is mentioned as a way of moving: moving while prone, ...
Look up one comment above yours? Or the several above that? I'll just put it here for your convenience.
A prone creature's only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands up and thereby ends the condition."
"To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation."
Teleportation can be done while prone, but your only Movement option while prone is crawling. Therefore, definitively, teleportation is not Movement.
The second bullet is very clear that you can move by teleporting though. That statement clearly describes both “crawling” and “using magic such as teleportation” as ways to move.
Are you saying getting knocked prone allows anyone and everyone to simply teleport? Hot take.
What I meant, and I thought this was very clear, was that that line gives you two options to move, crawling, and Magic such as teleportation. You don’t get to do that second one if you don’t have the means vis a via spellcasting or another similar ability. Please don’t deliberately misrepresent my words
See, I don't read it as giving you permission to do those things, so my reading doesn't lead to that same conclusion. That text seems to be outlining possible exceptions to a restriction, instead of granting options.
it is granting options, but only if you have access to them. Crawling is an option for all those who can crawl. Teleporting is an option for all those who can teleport. I agree that the line is not giving permission to do things you wouldn’t otherwise be able to do
But hey, if you want to say in your games that getting knocked prone unlocks in people the magical powers of teleportation, more power to you I guess.
No, the word move has a specific meaning in the rules. There's an entire section in Chapter 9 dedicated to describing just what a move is and how it works. Move and movement are inseparable. And move is consistently used to refer to a creature expending speed; be it willing or compelled.
1) Chapter 9 is rules for Combat (which is why it is helpfully labeled 'Combat'), not the game as a whole. Chapter 8 also has a Movement section that details travel paces that differ from your speed. Are you saying those are not movement?
2) "Move" is used in numerous locations to not mean the use of speed as are the movement types listed in chapter 9; it is not a "special" term unless it 1) is bolded in the text, 2) is under a subheading or heading specific to "movement", or 3) also references your speed in the passage in question. Thats just basic reading comprehension. As for examples that don't do that, and don't conform to what you are saying move is: telekinesis allows you to "move" a creature or object without using their (or your) speed. cloudkill "moves" 10' per round, automatically. the hand created by arcane hand can both be "moved" using your bonus action (no reference or use of speed) and automatically "moves" itself during the Interposing Hand ability to position itself between you and the target. blade of disaster and spiritual weapon are able to be "moved" the same way as Arcane Hand, as is the spirit beast/fey created by healing spirit. the duplicates of mirror image "move" with you (while using 0 movement or reference to a distance or speed at all). Catapult causes an object to "fly" which while it does not use "move" is using a word that is a type of movement. Many illusion spells "move" or allow you to "move" the created illusions. Outside of spells, "move" is used in the Monk - Drunken Master section to describe the type of movements the monk makes as part of that subclass, right in the intro paragraph. The [feat]telekinetic[/feat] says you can "move" things with your mind. The [feat]crusher[/feat] allows you to "move" a creature you hit 5 feet (does not use your speed, their speed, and functionally works like the "push" and "pull" of other effects). the immovable rod reads the opposite, saying the rod cannot "move" when activated. driftglobes follow you when you move, but their own movement does not use or reference a speed explicitly. the masquerade tattoo can be "moved" to another area of your skin....I can do more, but you get the point. "Move" is not a "special" term that only means the one thing you think it means.
3) if you expand the list to include the verbs that also mean move, this list expands significantly. Reading the rules in plain english, as is the way you are supposed to, would consider these synonymous verbs to also mean "move"
If move was intended to include more than this, and also include teleportation, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. They'd have made it crystal clear somewhere in the book. They wouldn't have discretely buried it in the rules for being prone.
It isn't "buried". The writers assume you use plain english to read the rules. There are very few instances of teleportation in the rules to begin with, and all of them that include any description of what teleportation is (some don't include any clarifying language), infer that it is moving directly, like the rule for prone, or use language that in plain english also infers moving, like the spell teleport, which uses "transports"
And, as it stands, that's your best evidence. A single sentence about moving while prone. And that's not even compelling. You're entire argument is predicated on a subtlety. And, as we've already covered, WotC doesn't do subtle. There are no secret or hidden rules. And why there? It's such an obscure place. If you're claiming this was the intent, that teleporting is the same moving, wouldn't it be better served elsewhere? Wouldn't it be clearly expressed elsewhere and not merely inference?
Not if they thought the reader was familiar enough with plain english to understand what "teleport" means, or barring that, what "transport" means. I agree that the book should have a glossary, btw, but they don't, so we have to use plain english for those terms that aren't defined.
Or are you claiming it was a mistake; that WotC didn't intend this but it slipped through anyway? Because, if the intent was for teleportation to be moving, we'd have this...
This spell moves you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.
...instead of this.
This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.
The first reference to teleporting is on page 75. We don't get a working definition of what that means until page 281. But we can definitive say it's not moving. Because that's not the word being used. It doesn't matter what you think transport means or is a synonym for
It does, actually, because they use that word to define teleport in an number of places, and the rules require an understanding of plain english to interpret.
. Because I can look up Dictionary.com, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, and more. And they don't say what you say. And I'm too cheap to pay for a subscription to the OED, so while they are the most complete they're also the least accessible
Or you can Google "(word) meaning" or "(word) definition"...Google uses the OED as its basis for returning info.
. And that's not the standard of measure we should be holding ourselves, or WotC, to.
The standard I hold to them is the standard they set for themselves, which is PLAIN ENGLISH...and that says that teleportation is transport (RAW) and transport means, when reduced to one word, "move"
I'm not going to bother formatting this. Just... all the examples of exceptions to normal movemt and move rules indeed are exceptions. And, as a matter of fact, tell you exactly how they work. These spells and effects that cause someone/something to move in a way not described in the movement rules indeed, for sure, are exceptions to those rules.
The existence of exceptions is not evidence of anything you claim it is, though.
The fact that exceptions exist at all would fly in the face of the rather hardline position you have been arguing for the entire thread. If a claim is made (as you and others have) that moving and movement can only be what is listed in chapter 9 (and I assume 8, since both have a movement section), and an exception exists, then the claim is false. full stop.
"Plain English" means it is simple and unpretentious.
"Natural language" means the rules are written in a conversational tone. It's reflective of how languages evolve organically. But it doesn't mean there cannot be extravagance that you wouldn't find with "plain English."
The fact still remains that natural language is specifically called out as being used in their books. Your repeated insistence on things not actually presented in the books indicates you want it to be something it isn't.
At this point, I'm chalking it up to ego. The impression I have is you think this is some debate that can be won, but it's not. Not because you're incorrect, but because I think you misunderstand what an actual discourse should be. There are no points to be scored, no bragging rights to walk away with. The point is to learn from one another.
I just don't think you've made a compelling argument. Every spell you referenced still uses moves in terms of speed. Teleportation has no speed. Your own evidence argues against your point.
I'm done engaging with you. Call that a win, if you want. The people I feel most sorry for are those who listen to you.
I’m sorry if I have offended you in any way, but your initial And ongoing tone was just as harsh, and my response to that blunt. I don’t appreciate your last line here either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
All this talk of synonyms. Seriously?
Don't you think, if the intent was for these "synonyms" was to be interchangeable, that we'd just have the word "move" used over and over again? Don't you think there wouldn't even be a discussion on this?
After almost 7 years of publication, the language is virtually unchanged. It costs money to print these words. It costs ink, paper, and layout artists. And you expect us to believe that WotC went with bigger words, more flowery language, for the hell of it?
If you buy into this position, you're accusing them of wasteful incompetence in order to make your point.
No, because “move” is a generic. And it’s not how we talk in real life. It is considered bad writing to only use the same word over and over, especially when a synonymous word provides greater clarity. Any word or verb that describes motion could be synonymous with “move” in the right context, but many of those words also convey other information too that actually makes them more efficient to use than the generic “move”. It makes since for Thorn Whip to “pull” and Repelling Blast to “push” because those synonyms also help convey direction. It makes since to use “carry” or “transport” when you want to convey movement via another creature, effect, or object. Saying “I fall” conveys the same meaning in fewer words than “I move down due to gravity at 500 feet per round”, and it makes sense and is more efficient to use terms that are more familiar to an audience, like “instantly transports” to describe unfamiliar terms like teleport, than it is to say “move instantly in a special manner by a force or effect that doesn’t cross the spaces in between”. It also makes sense, when an effect doesn’t care about direction, or if you are being conveyed by another creature, or any other descriptor, to use the generic “move”, but most of the time, other words, while synonymous, are clearer.
No, the word move has a specific meaning in the rules. There's an entire section in Chapter 9 dedicated to describing just what a move is and how it works. Move and movement are inseparable. And move is consistently used to refer to a creature expending speed; be it willing or compelled. If move was intended to include more than this, and also include teleportation, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. They'd have made it crystal clear somewhere in the book. They wouldn't have discretely buried it in the rules for being prone.
And, as it stands, that's your best evidence. A single sentence about moving while prone. And that's not even compelling. You're entire argument is predicated on a subtlety. And, as we've already covered, WotC doesn't do subtle. There are no secret or hidden rules. And why there? It's such an obscure place. If you're claiming this was the intent, that teleporting is the same moving, wouldn't it be better served elsewhere? Wouldn't it be clearly expressed elsewhere and not merely inference?
Or are you claiming it was a mistake; that WotC didn't intend this but it slipped through anyway? Because, if the intent was for teleportation to be moving, we'd have this...
This spell moves you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.
...instead of this.
The first reference to teleporting is on page 75. We don't get a working definition of what that means until page 281. But we can definitive say it's not moving. Because that's not the word being used. It doesn't matter what you think transport means or is a synonym for. Because I can look up Dictionary.com, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, and more. And they don't say what you say. And I'm too cheap to pay for a subscription to the OED, so while they are the most complete they're also the least accessible. And that's not the standard of measure we should be holding ourselves, or WotC, to.
1) Chapter 9 is rules for Combat (which is why it is helpfully labeled 'Combat'), not the game as a whole. Chapter 8 also has a Movement section that details travel paces that differ from your speed. Are you saying those are not movement?
2) "Move" is used in numerous locations to not mean the use of speed as are the movement types listed in chapter 9; it is not a "special" term unless it 1) is bolded in the text, 2) is under a subheading or heading specific to "movement", or 3) also references your speed in the passage in question. Thats just basic reading comprehension. As for examples that don't do that, and don't conform to what you are saying move is: telekinesis allows you to "move" a creature or object without using their (or your) speed. cloudkill "moves" 10' per round, automatically. the hand created by arcane hand can both be "moved" using your bonus action (no reference or use of speed) and automatically "moves" itself during the Interposing Hand ability to position itself between you and the target. blade of disaster and spiritual weapon are able to be "moved" the same way as Arcane Hand, as is the spirit beast/fey created by healing spirit. the duplicates of mirror image "move" with you (while using 0 movement or reference to a distance or speed at all). Catapult causes an object to "fly" which while it does not use "move" is using a word that is a type of movement. Many illusion spells "move" or allow you to "move" the created illusions. Outside of spells, "move" is used in the Monk - Drunken Master section to describe the type of movements the monk makes as part of that subclass, right in the intro paragraph. The [feat]telekinetic[/feat] says you can "move" things with your mind. The [feat]crusher[/feat] allows you to "move" a creature you hit 5 feet (does not use your speed, their speed, and functionally works like the "push" and "pull" of other effects). the immovable rod reads the opposite, saying the rod cannot "move" when activated. driftglobes follow you when you move, but their own movement does not use or reference a speed explicitly. the masquerade tattoo can be "moved" to another area of your skin....I can do more, but you get the point. "Move" is not a "special" term that only means the one thing you think it means.
3) if you expand the list to include the verbs that also mean move, this list expands significantly. Reading the rules in plain english, as is the way you are supposed to, would consider these synonymous verbs to also mean "move"
It isn't "buried". The writers assume you use plain english to read the rules. There are very few instances of teleportation in the rules to begin with, and all of them that include any description of what teleportation is (some don't include any clarifying language), infer that it is moving directly, like the rule for prone, or use language that in plain english also infers moving, like the spell teleport, which uses "transports"
Not if they thought the reader was familiar enough with plain english to understand what "teleport" means, or barring that, what "transport" means. I agree that the book should have a glossary, btw, but they don't, so we have to use plain english for those terms that aren't defined.
It does, actually, because they use that word to define teleport in an number of places, and the rules require an understanding of plain english to interpret.
Or you can Google "(word) meaning" or "(word) definition"...Google uses the OED as its basis for returning info.
The standard I hold to them is the standard they set for themselves, which is PLAIN ENGLISH...and that says that teleportation is transport (RAW) and transport means, when reduced to one word, "move"
You keep typing out plain English as if you have a point, and you don't. The PHB has been translated into a number of languages.
Their guiding principle is natural language.
Please describe how "natural language" is different from "plain english" when the text in question is written in english. I speak english. My books are written in english. The writers wrote the original versions of the book in english. Alternately, please describe how subbing in "natural language" for "plain english" in my posts would refute any of the points I have made.
And you conveniently ignored the actual meat of my response, where I have proven, via a significant number of examples, that "move" is not always the special term you and others seem to claim it is.
I'm not sure what your point is, but...yes? That is why the writers used a more familiar term like "transport" to describe a potentially foreign term like "teleport". The post I was responding to was saying that the definition of "transport" doesn't matter. I was explaining that it does, because knowing what that means is key to understanding what "teleport" means to the writers. I assume more people know what "transport" means than know what "teleport" means because "transport" is a more common term with IRL applications.
The whole point of understanding a language is understanding what words mean. Some words are less commonly known than others, so the writers using a more common word to explain a less common one is not a rejection of plain english, it is an application of it.
I think you are working backwards here. "Transport" does not have to take teleportation into account. The writers have called Teleporting "instant transport". They have made the connection that teleporting is like transporting and included the subset of teleportation in the larger set of "transport". The logical path is: 1) to teleport is to be "Instantly Transported" (source, RAW). 2) To be transported is to be moved (source, natural language/plain english, previously cited by me in this thread). 3). If #1 and #2 are true, then to teleport is to be moved.
I'm perfectly happy to stop and move on at this point, but I don't appreciate people saying that I'm "wrong" or "breaking the rules" for interpreting the rules using natural language/plain english (ie the way they are supposed to be). That we can come up with different possible interpretations is ok (I've said so in prior posts), its when people say that only their way is "correct" when its really just their interpretation that I get rankled. Anyway, best of luck to you and your games!
I didn't say it was irrational. I said that it was wrong to say that one is a " a deviation, a house rule" and the other is not. Both are interpretations, and either one might be the intended interpretation, but neither one is a house rule. Neither one is "deviating from RAW".
RAW is always interpreted, because it uses language to communicate. It's not a set of computer code that is compiled down to binary. It's interpreted by people by using their understanding of the words. If interpretations differ due to prioritizing different contextual information, that's not surprising. One might even be a provably incorrect interpretation. But unless the person holding that interpretation says "yeah, I know they meant something different, but i"m changing it", then it isn't Home Brew. And just dismissing an argument by saying "you're deviating from RAW" when the whole point of the discussion was "what really is RAW here", doesn't seem like someone engaging in good faith, IMO.
RAW is interpreted based on conventions and understanding of what the natural language (and game-specific terms) mean. The designers have clearly stated that 5e was written so that the rules required the least amount of game-specific jargon to understand. This suggests to me that one ought to err on the side of a broad, natural language interpretation unless the text is clearly being more specific in that context.
So in the narrow context of "Movement Types", Teleport is clearly not one.
In the broad question of "does Teleport move you?", one ought not to read that in the narrow context of "movement types", but rather the least game-specific, natural language way. The answer is yes, it does.
The more game-specific narrow terms that one has to invoke to make ones argument, the less likely the 5e designers intended you to come to that conclusion (as far as I can tell).
That said -- either interpretation is just that -- neither is a Home Brew, Deviation from RAW, which was the point I was addressing.
You must spend an extra foot of movement for every foot traveled in difficult terrain.
This statement is Plain English. None of those words are fancy at all.
But it is NOT natural language. No one would ever utter that sentence in normal natural conversion.
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.
2 is what you're arbitrarily adding in, unprompted by RAW to do so. That's sort of a you thing, not a rules thing.
Also, regarding 1. It does call it transport sometimes. It also calls it "instantaneously appear" sometimes. Why do you keep forgetting that? Feels like convenient amnesia is unlikely. Maybe some other reason you keep forgetting about that? Certainly if we can learn something of what the authors meant from the word transport we could learn just as much from Instantaneously Appear? No?
The game encourages homebrew. You're not "wrong" or "breaking the rules" if you homebrew stuff. Just make sure your players know you intend to deviate from the RAW, and how, and there shouldn't be an issue.
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.
You realize I’m not the one who insisted on the term “natural language” right? I’ve been saying Plain English for pages
Sure, but that applies to everyone, like when you deviate from the RAW and have teleportation not count as movement.
I'm not going to bother formatting this. Just... all the examples of exceptions to normal movemt and move rules indeed are exceptions. And, as a matter of fact, tell you exactly how they work. These spells and effects that cause someone/something to move in a way not described in the movement rules indeed, for sure, are exceptions to those rules.
The existence of exceptions is not evidence of anything you claim it is, though.
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.
how then, do you define “instantly transported” ? Defining words is part of understanding language, which is how you read.
I see no reason why the combination of “disappear” and “appear” combined with a change of position is not moving, so I fail to see your point here.
I’m not “deviating” I’m “interpreting”. Just because you disagree with me does not mean I’m homebrewing or wrong.
Are you saying getting knocked prone allows anyone and everyone to simply teleport? Hot take.
See, I don't read it as giving you permission to do those things, so my reading doesn't lead to that same conclusion. That text seems to be outlining possible exceptions to a restriction, instead of granting options.
But hey, if you want to say in your games that getting knocked prone unlocks in people the magical powers of teleportation, more power to you I guess.
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 was being a pedant.
"Plain English" means it is simple and unpretentious.
"Natural language" means the rules are written in a conversational tone. It's reflective of how languages evolve organically. But it doesn't mean there cannot be extravagance that you wouldn't find with "plain English."
The fact still remains that natural language is specifically called out as being used in their books. Your repeated insistence on things not actually presented in the books indicates you want it to be something it isn't.
At this point, I'm chalking it up to ego. The impression I have is you think this is some debate that can be won, but it's not. Not because you're incorrect, but because I think you misunderstand what an actual discourse should be. There are no points to be scored, no bragging rights to walk away with. The point is to learn from one another.
I just don't think you've made a compelling argument. Every spell you referenced still uses moves in terms of speed. Teleportation has no speed. Your own evidence argues against your point.
[REDACTED]
What I meant, and I thought this was very clear, was that that line gives you two options to move, crawling, and Magic such as teleportation. You don’t get to do that second one if you don’t have the means vis a via spellcasting or another similar ability. Please don’t deliberately misrepresent my words
it is granting options, but only if you have access to them. Crawling is an option for all those who can crawl. Teleporting is an option for all those who can teleport. I agree that the line is not giving permission to do things you wouldn’t otherwise be able to do
i don’t. Again, don’t misrepresent my words
The fact that exceptions exist at all would fly in the face of the rather hardline position you have been arguing for the entire thread. If a claim is made (as you and others have) that moving and movement can only be what is listed in chapter 9 (and I assume 8, since both have a movement section), and an exception exists, then the claim is false. full stop.
I’m sorry if I have offended you in any way, but your initial And ongoing tone was just as harsh, and my response to that blunt. I don’t appreciate your last line here either.