A laundry list of how various spell effects can "move" does not apply to how a character can move. It's worth remembering when the rules for Movement and Position are exclusively for when referring to what creatures can do with their move.
If you're going to continue insisting that creatures can teleport as part of their move, then you're insisting that teleportation is Movement. And that's a patently false assertion.
And now we have a new conundrum: if a creature is paralyzed, and being paralyzed means they cannot move, can they be moved by another character or effect? If you accept that move refers to any and all possible movement a character can be subject to, up to and including pulling, pushing, and teleportation, then they're locked in place.
Of course they can! Context is key to understanding the different ways the word “move” is used. if you recognize that move has multiple definitions depending on context, then nothing that prevents the creature from moving would prevent another creature from moving the first one
Earlier, that was me being a LITTLE sarcastic. My aim was to highlight a problem with the discussion.
"Move" is used in the PHB as a noun (among other parts of speech) to label something you can do during your turn. It's when you can expend "Speed" as part of your "Movement." It's also used plainly in a sentence about getting around while prone, but the sentence wasn't trying to say that teleportation is movement (as some others have tried to). Teleportation, clearly, works by its own rules. Teleport, unlike actual movement, lacks a speed that can be reduced or deducted from. And if you teleport while prone, you're still prone.
If you're paralyzed, per the condition, can you move? Yes and no, depending on context. You cannot take your move, but you can be moved...within reason. If something has locked you in place, you might not be movable by outside interference. If you're flying and cannot hover, you fall if paralyzed. Some call this moving, but I don't because the PHB uses a better, more specific word to describe what is happening.
Words have meanings. There is not, nor their should be, a one-size-fits-all approach. And yet, some people try to anyway by making "move" apply in as many situations as they can tenuously stretch it to. Following that train of thought to its logical conclusion, what we're left with is a nebulous definition that means whatever is needed, or wanted, in order to generate a desired outcome. It means the rules lack internal consistency. And if that doesn't frustrate people, I don't know what would.
I have been arguing, for however many pages now, for internal consistency. A spell like Thorn Whip might move a target by pulling them towards the spellcaster. But the word choice is "pull," so as far as the game is concerned they didn't "move." Ditto for being pushed, falling, and even teleporting. Unless a feature, spell, or trait says you move then, as far as the rules are concerned, you don't move; regardless of what a thesaurus says or the net change in relative location.
A thing does what it says it does. Sometimes, the vast majority of the time with 5e, really, it doesn't take more then a surface reading of something to understand what it means. This is a game for 12-year-olds, for children. It's not written to be complicated.
Edit: I'm on my phone and will be desktopless for a few days, so I'm dropping the pretense of trying to link to everything.
This is an excellent argument that by definition, standing up isn't moving, even though it costs movement. That rule about moving costing double really puts the nail in the coffin on standing up being moving, if there was any doubt.
No doubt here standing up while costing movement is not moving since you don't change location by leaving your space/square to enter another. This is both RAW and RAI;
@thomas_bechtel For Booming Blade, did you intend for standing up from prone to trigger the extra damage? It costs movement.
@JeremyECrawford Standing up costs movement but moves you nowhere. To move while prone, you crawl or use magic (PH, 191). #DnD
This is an excellent argument that by definition, standing up isn't moving, even though it costs movement. That rule about moving costing double really puts the nail in the coffin on standing up being moving, if there was any doubt.
No doubt here standing up while costing movement is not moving since you don't change location by leaving your space/square to enter another. This is both RAW and RAI;
@thomas_bechtel For Booming Blade, did you intend for standing up from prone to trigger the extra damage? It costs movement.
@JeremyECrawford Standing up costs movement but moves you nowhere. To move while prone, you crawl or use magic (PH, 191). #DnD
So then you can stand up while paralyzed? The condition simply says you are incapacitated (can't take actions or reactions) and cannot move or speak. Standing up is not an action or reaction, is certainly not speaking and you are insisting that, under both RAW and RAI, it is not moving.
You can't stand up while paralyzed because while standing up, you deduct the distance of each part of your move and you can't move while paralyzed.
Movement and Position: However you’re moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
Is standing up from prone considered moving? Standing up costs movement but moves you nowhere. When the game refers to you moving, it means moving some distance. It doesn’t mean making a gesture or standing up in place. To move while prone, you crawl or use magic (PH, 191).
Perhaps a literal reading of the RAW could lead one to think it's possible to stand up while paralyzed because the condition doesn't reduce your speed to 0, but good luck with trying that with any sane DM ☺
While standing up is not moving, you certainly have to move to stand up. If you can't move any of your limbs how do you do? loll
Nothing in the paralyzed condition says anything prohibiting changes to your max movement. Nor does it even say anything about setting your movement to 0.
A literal reading of the paralyzed condition says you can't move. While standing up is not moving, you certainly have to move to stand up, which you can't while paralyzed.
Allowing creature that retain speed but can't move to still do stuff freely as part of their move will lead to undesired situation where an unconscious, paralyzed or surprised creatures sing, mount/dismount, draw weapon, close door or otherwise interact with an object or feature of the environment.
A laundry list of how various spell effects can "move" does not apply to how a character can move. It's worth remembering when the rules for Movement and Position are exclusively for when referring to what creatures can do with their move.
If you're going to continue insisting that creatures can teleport as part of their move, then you're insisting that teleportation is Movement. And that's a patently false assertion.
And now we have a new conundrum: if a creature is paralyzed, and being paralyzed means they cannot move, can they be moved by another character or effect? If you accept that move refers to any and all possible movement a character can be subject to, up to and including pulling, pushing, and teleportation, then they're locked in place.
Of course they can! Context is key to understanding the different ways the word “move” is used. if you recognize that move has multiple definitions depending on context, then nothing that prevents the creature from moving would prevent another creature from moving the first one
Nothing? Someone is strapped to an immovable rod, set to 'immovable,' preventing them from moving. Does this mean someone else can move them?
If someone uses polymorph true on someone hanging on to such a rod to change the target creature into a stone that encases said rod, then how would anyone move them?
Heck, someone merely manacled to a wall. Someone trapped in a web or entangle spell..... someone else cannot simply freely move them without dealing with the cause of the immobility.
This is why 'move' is so context dependent and does not always mean the same thing. Or is that merely 'homebrew' to you?
To be clear, the "teleportation is moving" camp of this debate is arguing that teleportation is (or can be) moving under certain circumstances, but it is a type of moving to which the normal rules of movement do not apply by default. "Teleportation is moving" has never meant that all rules that use the word "move" will mindlessly apply to teleporting.
Similarly, if a creature cannot "move" for whatever reason, then the full context is needed before you can decide if such a creature can or cannot walk, fly, fall, be pushed, or teleport. Of those options, teleport has always been the most likely to bypass such a "no moving" restriction. A paralysed creature can absolutely teleport, but only if it has an ability that lets it teleport without using its move or any action (and no such creature ability exists), just as a paralysed creature could be pushed or carried around. A creature that is locked onto an immovable rod would not be easily pushed (a check would be needed to break the locking mechanism at least), but still such a creature would generally be able to teleport (or be teleported) out of such a situation.
The key question, which is yet to be universally agreed to, is for a rule which triggers "when a creature moves into the area" or similar triggers that rely on moving into, out of, or away from things - would such a triggered effect kick in if a creature were to teleport to such an area from a location outside of the area.
The "teleport is not moving" camp appear to be of the opinion that these effects would not trigger because "teleportation is not moving" and thus "teleporting into" is never "moving into".
The "teleport is moving" camp are of the opinion that teleporting into such an area will generally count as "moving" into the area and will thus trigger the effect.
If you already agree with one of those two assumptions, then you agree with one or the other camp.
The side-debate around "is teleportation Movement?" is actually a red herring. No one cares about the answer to that question, because no rules actually trigger off "Movement" versus triggering off "moving". There are rules or effects that will affect your movement or speed (by increasing or reducing your speed/movement), but no one in the "teleport is moving" camp was ever confused about how those effects worked. We do not believe that an effect which increases your movement would affect teleportation at all.
If everyone were to agree that "teleporting into an area" will generally count as "moving into an area" - then the debate is over.
Sage Advice: Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it ...Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary
Now that it was demonstrated that the game refers to teleportation as moving (willingly or not), the only thing left to determine is if someone entering a space count as passing into it.
If everyone were to agree that "teleporting into an area" will generally count as "moving into an area" - then the debate is over.
But you see, that is the biggest distinction I am making. If you move into an area of spike growth, you take damage. If you simply appear in it by teleportation, do you? Someone does not take damage when it appears. Someone does not take damage merely from standing stationary in it. Only from moving in or moving within it.
But with teleport, you are not actually moving through the spikey vines on entering. You simply appear in their midst, just as if it had formed around you.
I am not going to go through every spell or effect case by case. That specific example should be enough to explain my objection to the term 'move' in that context.
For spike growth, the spell requires 5 feet of travel to trigger damage. Teleporting travels, but not in physical space, so I’d only count the distance traveled in physical space, which is 0 feet.
this is a more unique situation though, because while the spell creates an area, it’s not creating a volume, and the damage is tied specifically to travel within that area, not simply existing in it.
If everyone were to agree that "teleporting into an area" will generally count as "moving into an area" - then the debate is over.
But you see, that is the biggest distinction I am making. If you move into an area of spike growth, you take damage. If you simply appear in it by teleportation, do you? Someone does not take damage when it appears. Someone does not take damage merely from standing stationary in it. Only from moving in or moving within it.
But with teleport, you are not actually moving through the spikey vines on entering. You simply appear in their midst, just as if it had formed around you.
I am not going to go through every spell or effect case by case. That specific example should be enough to explain my objection to the term 'move' in that context.
That's fine! That's a fine decision. The CONTEXT has informed you that the damage from that particular effect is generated from moving *through* (a little bit of) the affected area - not just from arriving suddenly into it. This is a valid ruling.
Likewise the context for an effect might inform you that the damage comes from arriving in the zone rather than moving any distance through it.The most common language for such an effect is "when you enter the area", but "when you move into" also exists. Other effects might trigger or end when "you move 20ft away from the point" or similar. The "teleport is moving" camp will generally agree that teleporting 30ft away will absolutely count as moving 30ft away.
In this way does teleporting sometimes count as moving, and sometimes not count. This is why we argue that the assertion "teleporting is not moving" is a false assertion.
Sage Advice: Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it ...Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary
Now that it was demonstrated that the game refers to teleportation as moving (willingly or not), the only thing left to determine is if someone entering a space count as passing into it.
My conclusion, passing into a space means moving or going into it, which you do while teleporting in there.
Way to ignore my point completely. You do not move through the spikes when teleporting in. You do not pass through them. Nor does spiked growth use the word 'pass.' It uses the word 'move.' When you do not take damage from being stationary within the area, do not take damage on arrival of the spikes, why would you take damage from appearing in their midst????
Spike Growth cause damage when a creature moves into or within the area. This distinction to me effectively means it cause damage when initiallly passing into it, as well as when moving through it while already in there. In short, when teleporting into a space or area, you do move into it.
There really isn't any reason to assume teleporting into a spike growth area means "You simply appear in their midst, just as if it [the spike growth] had formed around you", if you're trying to get beyond the RAW/RAI discussion and into the why of the spell.
It makes at least at much sense to assume the spikes gets displaced by your arrival, and you take damage as a result as the vines shift around and try to snap back into place.
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)
They do NOT damage people when they form. And you cannot teleport into a solid object. If you literally did land on or in a spikey vine, it would presumably count as an occupied space and fail, possibly doing damage to you (and the vine) depending on precise spell or ability used.
If you wish to rule that spike growth is an object that fills a 5' square and thus is impossible to teleport into, then go ahead.
My ruling is that teleporting into a spike growth area will incur damage. I won't rule that there are perfectly boot-sized gaps in the growth just waiting for your lower legs to fill.
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)
Spike Growth 40ft wide patch of ground with thorns and spikes ( Area of Effect for the spell is a 20ft radial sphere where the center of the effect can be placed 150ft away from the caster. ) and it is considered difficult terrain for the propose of limiting movement speed.
If one has no choice but to pass though it( having to pass the long way though the center to get to the other side), teleporting though it with say Far Step means they can get to the far side and not take any damage.
But if they only have Misty Step then they will only get 30ft across (three quarters the distance of the longest path of travel), take 2d4 damage on entering the space of the AOE ( stepping on a spikes hurts ), and would then have to spend 20ft of speed to finish clearing the growth, taking only 4d4 worth of damage to do so. ( 2d4 damage for every 5ft of travel though the spikes)
The second half of the spell of spike growth says the AOE is camouflaged to look like normal ground needing a good look to tell it's there, which tells me even if you notice it before teleporting to space within, you'll take damage.
Now if your standing there already, and the spike growth spell is cast on your position, then no you would not take damage, unless you jump straight up and back down, then you would take damage. The spell says nothing about a creature starting it's turn in the AOE.
A laundry list of how various spell effects can "move" does not apply to how a character can move. It's worth remembering when the rules for Movement and Position are exclusively for when referring to what creatures can do with their move.
If you're going to continue insisting that creatures can teleport as part of their move, then you're insisting that teleportation is Movement. And that's a patently false assertion.
It's also not an assertion that anyone has made AFAICT.
It's like a Venn diagram. The big circle is "Move". I nside that is another circle "What you do with your Move on your turn". Teleport is in the big circle, but not in the little circle.
So would you say that, when the rules use "move" to mean "change location", teleport counts as moving (although never a Movement Type, or using a movement speed)?
Actually what I would say is that move always means 'to change location' but does not always mean 'through normal space,' and that that is the main distinction. You are taking what I said and using a distinction that applies to the difference between standing up and moving laterally, and seemingly trying to trap me into agreeing that the distinction between moving through normal space, or not, is therefore somehow unimportant.
My point was that if there is one important distinction there can be other important distinctions. If there are two separate distinctly and importantly different connotations of the verb 'to move,' that there can be three.
I completely agree with you on this point. In fact, in most cases, moving through is very important in the context. You can't move through an enemy, moving across difficult terrain takes extra movement, moving through a dangerous area does damage to you etc. There are many many instances where the context about how you move is important.
Teleportation can count as moving in that it changes your location but in situations where the intervening space matters, it doesn't count. Standing up can count as moving in that you are changing position from sitting to standing but in situations where changing your location matters, it doesn't count. One's lungs expand and contract while breathing. They are constantly moving. Does this mean paralysis causes suffocation? If the DM's world rotates, as our real world does, does this mean that even just standing in Spike Growth is 'moving within the area.'
If you take the word 'move' literally in every instance, you will get clearly unintended situations. Are they RAW?
RAW was always "in context", so judgement matters. If I can restate something so that there's no doubt -- When I say "Teleport moves you", I don't mean that all instances of "move" are treated the same. This comes down to a subset/superset misunderstanding. If I say "All X's are Y's" I don't also mean "All Y's are X's". and If I say "In this context, X is not a Y" doesn't mean "X can never be Y".
So, if it is cast on your position, there is zero chance of any vines close enough to automatically damage you. If you are standing in it, even if you moved 5' and thus took damage the prior round, you take no damage. However if you teleport in, for whatever reason, you automatically land on spikes and take damage? Why? 'Because?'
Because making an AOE on creatures doesn't damage them as they are not considered having entered or moved into it (as per Sage Advice) and taking damage on prior rounds doesn't cause damage on next one if you don't move through it (as per Spike Growth).
Kotath, you continue to make assumptions about the why of the spell ("if it is cast on your position, there is zero chance of any vines close enough to automatically damage you") that are not stated or even supported in the text of the spell. spike growth says nothing about why it doesn't damage you if cast around you. It just doesn't do damage immediately in that scenario.
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)
Spike Growth 40ft wide patch of ground with thorns and spikes ( Area of Effect for the spell is a 20ft radial sphere where the center of the effect can be placed 150ft away from the caster. ) and it is considered difficult terrain for the propose of limiting movement speed.
If one has no choice but to pass though it( having to pass the long way though the center to get to the other side), teleporting though it with say Far Step means they can get to the far side and not take any damage.
But if they only have Misty Step then they will only get 30ft across (three quarters the distance of the longest path of travel), take 2d4 damage on entering the space of the AOE ( stepping on a spikes hurts ), and would then have to spend 20ft of speed to finish clearing the growth, taking only 4d4 worth of damage to do so. ( 2d4 damage for every 5ft of travel though the spikes)
The second half of the spell of spike growth says the AOE is camouflaged to look like normal ground needing a good look to tell it's there, which tells me even if you notice it before teleporting to space within, you'll take damage.
Now if your standing there already, and the spike growth spell is cast on your position, then no you would not take damage, unless you jump straight up and back down, then you would take damage. The spell says nothing about a creature starting it's turn in the AOE.
So, if it is cast on your position, there is zero chance of any vines close enough to automatically damage you. If you are standing in it, even if you moved 5' and thus took damage the prior round, you take no damage. However if you teleport in, for whatever reason, you automatically land on spikes and take damage? Why? 'Because?'
How the person would get out and what would happen to them when they try is a completely separate question. My question regarding how anyone moves through it at all was based on the density you seem to be assuming, i.e. so dense that anyone arriving in it also takes damage as if they had moved 5' in it.
If the spell is cast on your position, you have yet to "move", and so your just standing in the vines and spikes that have formed around you. Remember the spell is a 20ft AOE of a sphere, disguised to look like normal ground. Chapter 10: Spellcasting describes how an AOE of the sphere type works.
If you are standing in it, even if you moved 5' and thus took damage the prior round, you take no damage.
Sure if all you do is just stand there for the round.
However if you teleport in, for whatever reason, you automatically land on spikes and take damage? Why? 'Because?'
Because you have used teleportation to "move into" the AOE, the same as if you have walked 5ft into the growth.
Of course they can! Context is key to understanding the different ways the word “move” is used. if you recognize that move has multiple definitions depending on context, then nothing that prevents the creature from moving would prevent another creature from moving the first one
Earlier, that was me being a LITTLE sarcastic. My aim was to highlight a problem with the discussion.
"Move" is used in the PHB as a noun (among other parts of speech) to label something you can do during your turn. It's when you can expend "Speed" as part of your "Movement." It's also used plainly in a sentence about getting around while prone, but the sentence wasn't trying to say that teleportation is movement (as some others have tried to). Teleportation, clearly, works by its own rules. Teleport, unlike actual movement, lacks a speed that can be reduced or deducted from. And if you teleport while prone, you're still prone.
If you're paralyzed, per the condition, can you move? Yes and no, depending on context. You cannot take your move, but you can be moved...within reason. If something has locked you in place, you might not be movable by outside interference. If you're flying and cannot hover, you fall if paralyzed. Some call this moving, but I don't because the PHB uses a better, more specific word to describe what is happening.
Words have meanings. There is not, nor their should be, a one-size-fits-all approach. And yet, some people try to anyway by making "move" apply in as many situations as they can tenuously stretch it to. Following that train of thought to its logical conclusion, what we're left with is a nebulous definition that means whatever is needed, or wanted, in order to generate a desired outcome. It means the rules lack internal consistency. And if that doesn't frustrate people, I don't know what would.
I have been arguing, for however many pages now, for internal consistency. A spell like Thorn Whip might move a target by pulling them towards the spellcaster. But the word choice is "pull," so as far as the game is concerned they didn't "move." Ditto for being pushed, falling, and even teleporting. Unless a feature, spell, or trait says you move then, as far as the rules are concerned, you don't move; regardless of what a thesaurus says or the net change in relative location.
A thing does what it says it does. Sometimes, the vast majority of the time with 5e, really, it doesn't take more then a surface reading of something to understand what it means. This is a game for 12-year-olds, for children. It's not written to be complicated.
Edit: I'm on my phone and will be desktopless for a few days, so I'm dropping the pretense of trying to link to everything.
No doubt here standing up while costing movement is not moving since you don't change location by leaving your space/square to enter another. This is both RAW and RAI;
@thomas_bechtel For Booming Blade, did you intend for standing up from prone to trigger the extra damage? It costs movement.
@JeremyECrawford Standing up costs movement but moves you nowhere. To move while prone, you crawl or use magic (PH, 191). #DnD
You can't stand up while paralyzed because while standing up, you deduct the distance of each part of your move and you can't move while paralyzed.
Movement and Position: However you’re moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
I'm not insisting, the rules, the Dev and also a Sage Advice that says that https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-answers-and-errata-october-2016
Is standing up from prone considered moving? Standing up costs movement but moves you nowhere. When the game refers to you moving, it means moving some distance. It doesn’t mean making a gesture or standing up in place. To move while prone, you crawl or use magic (PH, 191).
Perhaps a literal reading of the RAW could lead one to think it's possible to stand up while paralyzed because the condition doesn't reduce your speed to 0, but good luck with trying that with any sane DM ☺
While standing up is not moving, you certainly have to move to stand up. If you can't move any of your limbs how do you do? loll
A literal reading of the paralyzed condition says you can't move. While standing up is not moving, you certainly have to move to stand up, which you can't while paralyzed.
Allowing creature that retain speed but can't move to still do stuff freely as part of their move will lead to undesired situation where an unconscious, paralyzed or surprised creatures sing, mount/dismount, draw weapon, close door or otherwise interact with an object or feature of the environment.
To be clear, the "teleportation is moving" camp of this debate is arguing that teleportation is (or can be) moving under certain circumstances, but it is a type of moving to which the normal rules of movement do not apply by default. "Teleportation is moving" has never meant that all rules that use the word "move" will mindlessly apply to teleporting.
Similarly, if a creature cannot "move" for whatever reason, then the full context is needed before you can decide if such a creature can or cannot walk, fly, fall, be pushed, or teleport. Of those options, teleport has always been the most likely to bypass such a "no moving" restriction. A paralysed creature can absolutely teleport, but only if it has an ability that lets it teleport without using its move or any action (and no such creature ability exists), just as a paralysed creature could be pushed or carried around. A creature that is locked onto an immovable rod would not be easily pushed (a check would be needed to break the locking mechanism at least), but still such a creature would generally be able to teleport (or be teleported) out of such a situation.
The key question, which is yet to be universally agreed to, is for a rule which triggers "when a creature moves into the area" or similar triggers that rely on moving into, out of, or away from things - would such a triggered effect kick in if a creature were to teleport to such an area from a location outside of the area.
The "teleport is not moving" camp appear to be of the opinion that these effects would not trigger because "teleportation is not moving" and thus "teleporting into" is never "moving into".
The "teleport is moving" camp are of the opinion that teleporting into such an area will generally count as "moving" into the area and will thus trigger the effect.
If you already agree with one of those two assumptions, then you agree with one or the other camp.
The side-debate around "is teleportation Movement?" is actually a red herring. No one cares about the answer to that question, because no rules actually trigger off "Movement" versus triggering off "moving". There are rules or effects that will affect your movement or speed (by increasing or reducing your speed/movement), but no one in the "teleport is moving" camp was ever confused about how those effects worked. We do not believe that an effect which increases your movement would affect teleportation at all.
If everyone were to agree that "teleporting into an area" will generally count as "moving into an area" - then the debate is over.
Sage Advice: Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it ...Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary
Now that it was demonstrated that the game refers to teleportation as moving (willingly or not), the only thing left to determine is if someone entering a space count as passing into it.
PASS is an intransitive verb meaning move, proceed, go. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passes
My conclusion, passing into a space means moving or going into it, which you do while teleporting in there.
For spike growth, the spell requires 5 feet of travel to trigger damage. Teleporting travels, but not in physical space, so I’d only count the distance traveled in physical space, which is 0 feet.
this is a more unique situation though, because while the spell creates an area, it’s not creating a volume, and the damage is tied specifically to travel within that area, not simply existing in it.
That's fine! That's a fine decision. The CONTEXT has informed you that the damage from that particular effect is generated from moving *through* (a little bit of) the affected area - not just from arriving suddenly into it. This is a valid ruling.
Likewise the context for an effect might inform you that the damage comes from arriving in the zone rather than moving any distance through it.The most common language for such an effect is "when you enter the area", but "when you move into" also exists. Other effects might trigger or end when "you move 20ft away from the point" or similar. The "teleport is moving" camp will generally agree that teleporting 30ft away will absolutely count as moving 30ft away.
In this way does teleporting sometimes count as moving, and sometimes not count. This is why we argue that the assertion "teleporting is not moving" is a false assertion.
Spike Growth cause damage when a creature moves into or within the area. This distinction to me effectively means it cause damage when initiallly passing into it, as well as when moving through it while already in there. In short, when teleporting into a space or area, you do move into it.
You move when teleporting into space and areas and when you do, you count as entering into them if you weren't prior.
There really isn't any reason to assume teleporting into a spike growth area means "You simply appear in their midst, just as if it [the spike growth] had formed around you", if you're trying to get beyond the RAW/RAI discussion and into the why of the spell.
It makes at least at much sense to assume the spikes gets displaced by your arrival, and you take damage as a result as the vines shift around and try to snap back into place.
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)
If you wish to rule that spike growth is an object that fills a 5' square and thus is impossible to teleport into, then go ahead.
My ruling is that teleporting into a spike growth area will incur damage. I won't rule that there are perfectly boot-sized gaps in the growth just waiting for your lower legs to fill.
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)
Spike Growth 40ft wide patch of ground with thorns and spikes ( Area of Effect for the spell is a 20ft radial sphere where the center of the effect can be placed 150ft away from the caster. ) and it is considered difficult terrain for the propose of limiting movement speed.
If one has no choice but to pass though it( having to pass the long way though the center to get to the other side), teleporting though it with say Far Step means they can get to the far side and not take any damage.
But if they only have Misty Step then they will only get 30ft across (three quarters the distance of the longest path of travel), take 2d4 damage on entering the space of the AOE ( stepping on a spikes hurts ), and would then have to spend 20ft of speed to finish clearing the growth, taking only 4d4 worth of damage to do so. ( 2d4 damage for every 5ft of travel though the spikes)
The second half of the spell of spike growth says the AOE is camouflaged to look like normal ground needing a good look to tell it's there, which tells me even if you notice it before teleporting to space within, you'll take damage.
Now if your standing there already, and the spike growth spell is cast on your position, then no you would not take damage, unless you jump straight up and back down, then you would take damage. The spell says nothing about a creature starting it's turn in the AOE.
It's also not an assertion that anyone has made AFAICT.
It's like a Venn diagram. The big circle is "Move". I nside that is another circle "What you do with your Move on your turn". Teleport is in the big circle, but not in the little circle.
I completely agree with you on this point. In fact, in most cases, moving through is very important in the context. You can't move through an enemy, moving across difficult terrain takes extra movement, moving through a dangerous area does damage to you etc. There are many many instances where the context about how you move is important.
RAW was always "in context", so judgement matters. If I can restate something so that there's no doubt -- When I say "Teleport moves you", I don't mean that all instances of "move" are treated the same. This comes down to a subset/superset misunderstanding. If I say "All X's are Y's" I don't also mean "All Y's are X's". and If I say "In this context, X is not a Y" doesn't mean "X can never be Y".
Because making an AOE on creatures doesn't damage them as they are not considered having entered or moved into it (as per Sage Advice) and taking damage on prior rounds doesn't cause damage on next one if you don't move through it (as per Spike Growth).
Kotath, you continue to make assumptions about the why of the spell ("if it is cast on your position, there is zero chance of any vines close enough to automatically damage you") that are not stated or even supported in the text of the spell. spike growth says nothing about why it doesn't damage you if cast around you. It just doesn't do damage immediately in that scenario.
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)
If the spell is cast on your position, you have yet to "move", and so your just standing in the vines and spikes that have formed around you. Remember the spell is a 20ft AOE of a sphere, disguised to look like normal ground. Chapter 10: Spellcasting describes how an AOE of the sphere type works.
Sure if all you do is just stand there for the round.
Because you have used teleportation to "move into" the AOE, the same as if you have walked 5ft into the growth.