This all goes out the window if we use Star Trek style teleportation, which is actually simultaneous destruction/creation.
Player: I use Misty Step
DM: OK, philosophically I believe you're now an entirely new person. Make a new character with exactly the same ability scores, class, and equipment
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)
Ravnodaus I read that line like this: To move while prone you must crawl. The only other option available, maybe, would be magic. What kind? Teleportation might work.
It is suggestive, and that is why it uses the word "such". It is offering a suggestion, not a restriction. The crawling part, that is the restriction. The magic such a teleportation is a dangling offer of something else maybe.
The rule does not at all convey the uncertainty you subscribe to it. There is not a hint of uncertainty when it states: "To move while prone, you must crawlor use magic such as teleportation" . It is an either-or statement. "Such as teleportation" makes it clear that teleportation can move you while prone, and that other magical effects like it may work as well. Teleportation is a specific example of magic that works to move you while prone. It is a general statement. Even though I understand what you're saying I don't understand how you can interpret it anyway other than the way I just described.
To X while Y, you must A or B such as C. This sentence structure at no point says that all B is X, nor that all C is X.
Example: To heal while under chill touch effect, you must wait until the effect expires or use magic such as dispel magic.
Is using dispel magic... healing?
People are gleaming something from this phrase that isn't there.
Well, your example statement allows characters to heal when under the effect of the Chill Touch spell by either waiting for it to wear off or using Dispel Magic. This is obviously nonsense, as neither of your options would allow you to heal while under the effect of the spell. A similar sentence that actually makes sense would be: "in order to regain HP while at 0 HP, you must get stabilized (and wait a couple of hours) or use magical effects such as healing".
Breaking it down: In order to regain HP while at 0 HP" = X you must "get stabilized" = Y or "use magical effects such as healing" = Z
The original quote: "To move while prone" = X you must "crawl" = Y or "use magic such as teleportation" = Z
Both sentences have a similar sentence structure and both sentences state 2 options of which 1 must be completed in order to achieve X. As you say, it does not mean that either of the options become X. However both options are ways to qualify X, which is essentially the same as saying that teleportation/healing can cause "move while prone"/"regain HP while at 0 HP". As for the "such as teleportation/healing" statement, it functions as a clear, rules-defined example of what works, and that similar effects (DM defined) work as well.
So in these cases, with portal based teleportation, you consider the actual teleport distance to not be distance moved? Only the distance to/from the portal?
Yes. Say you have the Charger feat (which allows you to attack as a BA if you move 10 feet in a straight line after taking the Dash action). If you stood at the square next to one side of the portal and an enemy stood at the square next to the other side of the portal, I would not grant you the BA attack as you haven't moved 10 feet in a straight line. Teleporting 500 feet wouldn't qualify you for the BA attack as you haven't moved 500 feet. You have moved 5 feet (at most), but entered a point 500 feet away.
This is exactly how I view all teleportation. Not just portal teleports. You haven't moved, you're just now at a point far away.
I understand what you're saying, even though I am still under the impression that teleportation is a form of movement that doesn't require you to spend movement. As for whether or not teleportation counts as moving, how do you interpret the feature below? To me, this is another instance where the rules describe that teleportation counts as moving. How do you interpret it?
Grasping Arrow
When this arrow strikes its target, conjuration magic creates grasping, poisonous brambles, which wrap around the target. The creature hit by the arrow takes an extra 2d6 poison damage, its speed is reduced by 10 feet, and it takes 2d6 slashing damage the first time on each turn it moves 1 foot or more without teleporting.
This all goes out the window if we use Star Trek style teleportation, which is actually simultaneous destruction/creation.
Player: I use Misty Step
DM: OK, philosophically I believe you're now an entirely new person. Make a new character with exactly the same ability scores, class, and equipment
DM: Your character Vanishes. Your character Appears in the new location.
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.
Has anyone talked about how motion is relative*, and that without an objective observer there is no way to guarantee that we aren't remaining stationary while the universe moves around us?
In a vacuum, does all motion create attacks of opportunity for all players in melee reach of one another?
Does the passage of time represent life moving beyond my threat range? Does death trigger an Attack of Opportunity against God?
Based on the Text of the PHB. All my arguments are backed by RAW and relevant rules quotes.
not how the game uses the word.
If your claim is the rules I quoted are somehow not how the game uses the words... that's sorta a you thing to work out.
This isn't the homebrew forum.
So don't?
You cannot point to any game definition of either "move" or "movement" that precludes their standard English meanings. You haven't yet, anyway.
I've literally pointed to all of them. I genuinely, literally, non-figuratively quoted every single last instance of these words where they appeared in the combat rules.
Whereas, the rest of us can point to examples where the rules continue to use "move" and "movement" to generally describe changes in position and not just moving using your movement up to your speed during your turn.
You haven't though. "Movement" is always used in the rules in a different sense than "move/moving" is used.
....
As an aside though, what's with the "the rest of us" talk? The single highest Up-dooted comment on this entire topic is:
So, teleportation isn’t movement, but it does cause the teleporting creature to suddenly be in the area of effect that it was not in before, therefore meaning that they entered the area.
So, you are not only incorrect but not in any majority you seem to think you are. Most people have given up trying to show you how you're wrong, but I'm persistent. I believe anyone can learn if you just find the right approach.
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.
Did anyone talk about falling being movement that doesn’t cost movement yet?
Falling moves you but isn't movement. It also doesn't cost movement. Yes, it has been discussed.
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.
Kind of harsh to ask someone to prove a negative, isn't it?
I'm asking them to prove their point. The rules assume natural English unless they preclude a interpretation in some definition they make.
When the entire argument is that "This is the one and only way to interpret this word because the rules say so" then you'd imagine that the person making that argument would be able to point to a reason that you'd have to interpret a word in a very specific and unnatural way.
I don't think that Rav failing to post quotes and reasons is the issue here, the issue is that people have found them unpersuasive.
As near as I can tell, their arguments are:
Teleportation Isn't Movement:
PHB Chapter 8 has a section titled "Movement", which does not mention teleportation, even in the "Special Types of Movement" section. (just as it also doesn't mention flying or burrowing). They seem to draw the conclusion that this is a closed list/definition, and that anything which is not listed here as a special type of movement, is not movement, even if it "moves you".
PHB Chapter 9 has a section titled "Movement and Position," which describes using "your move" to move distance up to your speed. They seem to draw the conclusion that anything that moves you without using "your move" (e.g. falling, or special actions like an Orc's Aggressive) is not "movement" in the sense they find important, but.... something else.
Entering a Square Requires Their Limited Definition of "Your Move"-only Movement:
PHB Chapter 9 has a sidebar for playing on a grid for "Entering a Square," where "have at least 1 square of movement" is listed as a prerequisite for entering a square. They seem to draw the conclusion that going from square to square is not properly considered "entering a square," unless it was accomplished using "movement" (so not modalities that aren't listed in Chapter 8, and not any other type of forced movement or action-based movement).
It isn't that these arguments aren't coherent, or that they haven't pointed to where in the PHB they found them, but more that these arguments don't satisfy (1) the plain english tension of trying to coherently describe "move you without being movement", and how that's thus unlikely the meaning the plain-English-loving authors had in mind, (2) "move" is used many many many times throughout the PHB, in all sorts of spells and contexts, to describe changing positions on the battlefield, not just using "your move" on your turn, (3) the way that teleportation is brought up in the Opportunity Attack section itself demonstrates that the authors view it as a special type of "movement" that does not trigger OA's, (4) the plain english tension of trying to coherently describe "being moved so as to be in a square you were not in previously, but nevertheless not entering it" is unlikely to have been preferred by plain-English-loving authors, (5) numerous spell effects are rendered incoherent with such an interpretation, such as being untouched by damaging AOEs as long as you move into them with an action granting movement rather than "your move", and....
Well, the list goes on. Rav has made arguments, which many have not found persuasive. Others have made arguments, which Rav has not found persuasive. Repeating those arguments (especially in long posts with lots of different separate arguments) is not getting anyone anywhere either way. I believe Kotath in the other tread was the only poster I saw who was (partially) in Rav's camp, while several are in the other, but who knows how many silent readers are secretly rooting for them... without a poll, we'll never know :)
I almost completely agree, Chicken_Champ. I will just emphasize that none of the quotes that Rav has provided are anything but using "move" or "movement" in their natural language meanings and providing information/rules how motion behaves with certain parts of the game. Their quotes have not eliminated any natural language meanings or defined either of those words to exclude teleportation explicitly.
To X while Y, you must A or B such as C. This sentence structure at no point says that all B is X, nor that all C is X.
Example: To heal while under chill touch effect, you must wait until the effect expires or use magic such as dispel magic.
Is using dispel magic... healing?
People are gleaming something from this phrase that isn't there.
Well, your example statement allows characters to heal when under the effect of the Chill Touch spell by either waiting for it to wear off or using Dispel Magic. This is obviously nonsense, as neither of your options would allow you to heal while under the effect of the spell.
Sure sure. Your example is better.
As you say, it does not mean that either of the options become X. However both options are ways to qualify X, which is essentially the same as saying that teleportation/healing can cause "move while prone"/"regain HP while at 0 HP". As for the "such as teleportation/healing" statement, it functions as a clear, rules-defined example of what works, and that similar effects (DM defined) work as well.
Right. And, if you spend 5 ft of movement to Transport Via Plants you have moved while prone via teleportation. But teleportation, more broadly, isn't done on your move.
So in these cases, with portal based teleportation, you consider the actual teleport distance to not be distance moved? Only the distance to/from the portal?
Yes. Say you have the Charger feat (which allows you to attack as a BA if you move 10 feet in a straight line after taking the Dash action). If you stood at the square next to one side of the portal and an enemy stood at the square next to the other side of the portal, I would not grant you the BA attack as you haven't moved 10 feet in a straight line. Teleporting 500 feet wouldn't qualify you for the BA attack as you haven't moved 500 feet. You have moved 5 feet (at most), but entered a point 500 feet away.
This is exactly how I view all teleportation. Not just portal teleports. You haven't moved, you're just now at a point far away.
I understand what you're saying, even though I am still under the impression that teleportation is a form of movement that doesn't require you to spend movement.
I agree if we're using the normal everyday English word to describe it and not the 5e game terms. But, if we're discussing it in game terms I see the argument for
1. "that teleportation is a form of moving that doesn't require you to spend movement."
but not
2. "that teleportation is a form of movement that doesn't require you to spend movement."
Version 1 Is a valid argument. Even if I disagree with it. It's valid.
As for whether or not teleportation counts as moving, how do you interpret the feature below? To me, this is another instance where the rules describe that teleportation counts as moving. How do you interpret it?
Grasping Arrow
When this arrow strikes its target, conjuration magic creates grasping, poisonous brambles, which wrap around the target. The creature hit by the arrow takes an extra 2d6 poison damage, its speed is reduced by 10 feet, and it takes 2d6 slashing damage the first time on each turn it moves 1 foot or more without teleporting.
I don't infer things this way. I firmly believe that if the game treated teleportation as movement it would just straight up say so. Since it doesn't, the most you can gather from a phrase like that is that 'a type of teleport effect, might, somewhere, someday, be a move, and, if used in this situation, doesn't count as moving for the purposes of this spell'.
Although, I'm gradually changing my take on this type of teleport reference. Some people seem almost eager to misunderstand it as a move, or even as movement. For something that never once shows up in the rules, not a single time... a few people really are voraciously defending the incorrect notion that "teleportation is movement". I mean, not...once is it ever said in the rules. Yet here we are, with many people swearing up and down that's how it works "for reasons" yet, never once appearing in the text of the rules that "teleportation is movement". Clearly, people are primed for this type of misunderstanding for some reason.
I suspect that is because teleportation doesn't really exist. It is something fundamentally foreign to our experience, and our reality. Common Sense can't guide your intuition on it because you very literally don't have experience with it. Nothing you've ever known in your life behaves the way teleportation would. So, naturally, it is just something people are going to need extra clarity on. Essentially, because it's not real and none of us have a shared experience of what it is or how it works...It could behave any number of ways, so the authors need to be very clear how they envision it to work.
So, I can see that side of things too. When writing abilities you must also take your audience's perception into account. If you're at all worried that people don't know the difference between teleporting and moving, then, toss that in there to be extra clear and not have any misunderstanding. Tacking on "without teleporting" makes it super clear to the person using the ability that teleportation doesn't count as moving for triggering this effect. Even if they would have been primed to think otherwise, now it is clear. Teleporting isn't moving (for sure not for this effect).
I find it is sorta odd that people here then look for examples like this in search of a misunderstanding. That's not directed your way even if it sounded like it was. It is just that ability is written to be clear that teleporting never triggers the on-move stuff. But, then, somehow that clarity is used to try to craft the argument that teleportation is moving. I don't think we need to find hidden scraps of knowledge secreted away into the corners of the rules that can only be deciphered by inference. The rules just aren't written that way.
You spend movement on your turn's move, an amount up to your speed, this allows you to change location (ie move). <--- In no uncertain terms the game uses these words in this way, repeatedly. Directly. Nothing about this needs to be inferred. Just black and white. Ie is RAW. The game just doesn't talk about teleportation the same way.
Our intuition isn't trustworthy on effects that cannot exist in our reality. So, trust the RAW. What does the book actually say? We know it never says "teleportation is movement" that is for sure.
Questions for the Teleportation is Move(ment) crowd(s):
If you misty step 20ft immediately before long jumping, without any walking movement getting used whatsoever, do you consider that as satisfying the requirement to move 10ft before the jump? Why or why not?
Keeping your answer in mind... now, what if you're in the area of Spike Growth and teleport to another area within that same Spike Growth but 30ft away? How much damage are you taking?
Obviously misty stepping before a long jump doesn't count as moving 10 ft. The whole purpose of the requirement is to demonstrate the character has built up speed and momentum. Teleportation doesn't do that. So teleporting isn't moving.
If you think teleporting is moving, then... "while within the area" ... they ... "moved 30 ft". That's 12d4 damage? Does this actually make any sense though? They never went through those spaces... seems like one of those instances where misapplying the definition of movement to teleportation has derived nonsensical results.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don't think that Rav failing to post quotes and reasons is the issue here, the issue is that people have found them unpersuasive.
As near as I can tell, their arguments are:
Teleportation Isn't Movement:
PHB Chapter 8 has a section titled "Movement", which does not mention teleportation, even in the "Special Types of Movement" section. (just as it also doesn't mention flying or burrowing). They seem to draw the conclusion that this is a closed list/definition, and that anything which is not listed here as a special type of movement, is not movement, even if it "moves you".
PHB Chapter 9 has a section titled "Movement and Position," which describes using "your move" to move distance up to your speed. They seem to draw the conclusion that anything that moves you without using "your move" (e.g. falling, or special actions like an Orc's Aggressive) is not "movement" in the sense they find important, but.... something else.
Yes. Anything that moves you... is moving you. Movement comes in types, and is synonymous/interchangeable with speed. Move/Moving are not synonymous with movement nor speed. Movement is spent, to allow you to move. You can be moved by other effects/people/abilities etc.
Entering a Square Requires Their Limited Definition of "Your Move"-only Movement:
PHB Chapter 9 has a sidebar for playing on a grid for "Entering a Square," where "have at least 1 square of movement" is listed as a prerequisite for entering a square. They seem to draw the conclusion that going from square to square is not properly considered "entering a square," unless it was accomplished using "movement" (so not modalities that aren't listed in Chapter 8, and not any other type of forced movement or action-based movement).
I haven't said anything like this in this thread whatsoever. Nothing of the sort. I've stuck purely to the discussion of whether teleportation is or is not move(ment).
It isn't that these arguments aren't coherent, or that they haven't pointed to where in the PHB they found them, but more that these arguments don't satisfy (1) the plain english tension of trying to coherently describe "move you without being movement", and how that's thus unlikely the meaning the plain-English-loving authors had in mind,
Eh, they do satisfy plain English. You could even plug ""move you without being movement" in as a definition for teleportation in many contexts outside 5e.
(2) "move" is used many many many times throughout the PHB, in all sorts of spells and contexts, to describe changing positions on the battlefield, not just using "your move" on your turn,
Yes, I've said as much. Did you miss the massive post with all the colors? 2 colors for different concepts of what move means. Sometimes as part of your turn, sometimes and changing locations. I even half colored when it was both.
(3) the way that teleportation is brought up in the Opportunity Attack section itself demonstrates that the authors view it as a special type of "movement" that does not trigger OA's,
Or they recognized a portion of their audience might recognize it as such even if it wasn't. Especially for a concept we lack shared experience with. You've never teleported, but you've probably walked, jumped, climbed, swam, etc. We have practical real-world understanding of these things, but not teleportation. So being precise in the rules about it makes sense, the added clarifying bits are helpful to the reader.
(4) the plain english tension of trying to coherently describe "being moved so as to be in a square you were not in previously, but nevertheless not entering it" is unlikely to have been preferred by plain-English-loving authors,
Nothing, at all, to do with my points in this thread.
(5) numerous spell effects are rendered incoherent with such an interpretation, such as being untouched by damaging AOEs as long as you move into them with an action granting movement rather than "your move", and....
Nothing, at all, to do with my points in this thread.
Well, the list goes on. Rav has made arguments, which many have not found persuasive.
The list really does go on! It goes on so far... Apparently I even made arguments I didn''t actually make. Rofl.
Others have made arguments, which Rav has not found persuasive.
It isn't just me... Teleportation is not movement. That's just a fact. Unless someone can quote the rule they're referencing that says "Teleportation is movement" then I'm for sure not getting convinced. It actually needs to be in the rules for it to be... a rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I almost completely agree, Chicken_Champ. I will just emphasize that none of the quotes that Rav has provided are anything but using "move" or "movement" in their natural language meanings and providing information/rules how motion behaves with certain parts of the game. Their quotes have not eliminated any natural language meanings or defined either of those words to exclude teleportation explicitly.
In what context do you ... in natural English... "spend movement"?
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.
Questions for the Teleportation is Move(ment) crowd(s):
If you misty step 20ft immediately before long jumping, without any walking movement getting used whatsoever, do you consider that as satisfying the requirement to move 10ft before the jump? Why or why not?
Keeping your answer in mind... now, what if you're in the area of Spike Growth and teleport to another area within that same Spike Growth but 30ft away? How much damage are you taking?
No, because teleportation isn't on foot: When you make a long jump. you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump.
Teleportation isn't special. You also can't long jump by swimming for 10 feet.
4d4 (although a reasonable DM might decide 2d4), because spike growth only hurts you when you move into or within the area:
When a creature moves into or within the area, it takes 2d4 piercing damage for every 5 feet it travels.
When you teleport into a spike growth space, you by definition move into the area. +2d4.
While teleporting, you by definition aren't moving into or within spike growth, so 0d4 while traversing the intervening space.
When you teleport out from a spike growth space, you aren't moving into spike growth, but you are moving within it as you leave. +2d4
This is where a reasonable DM might disagree with me, but the disagreement has nothing to do with teleportation. This is the same question as whether or not you take 2d4 damage when walking out of spike growth normally - when you simply walk 5 feet from within spike growth to outside of it, have you moved within spike growth? I say yes, another DM might say no. Regardless, teleportation and walking resolve identically here.
Just to finish my point of view - this is the definition of Movement :
This all goes out the window if we use Star Trek style teleportation, which is actually simultaneous destruction/creation.
Player: I use Misty Step
DM: OK, philosophically I believe you're now an entirely new person. Make a new character with exactly the same ability scores, class, and equipment
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)
Well, your example statement allows characters to heal when under the effect of the Chill Touch spell by either waiting for it to wear off or using Dispel Magic. This is obviously nonsense, as neither of your options would allow you to heal while under the effect of the spell. A similar sentence that actually makes sense would be: "in order to regain HP while at 0 HP, you must get stabilized (and wait a couple of hours) or use magical effects such as healing".
Breaking it down:
In order to regain HP while at 0 HP" = X
you must
"get stabilized" = Y
or
"use magical effects such as healing" = Z
The original quote:
"To move while prone" = X
you must
"crawl" = Y
or
"use magic such as teleportation" = Z
Both sentences have a similar sentence structure and both sentences state 2 options of which 1 must be completed in order to achieve X. As you say, it does not mean that either of the options become X. However both options are ways to qualify X, which is essentially the same as saying that teleportation/healing can cause "move while prone"/"regain HP while at 0 HP". As for the "such as teleportation/healing" statement, it functions as a clear, rules-defined example of what works, and that similar effects (DM defined) work as well.
I understand what you're saying, even though I am still under the impression that teleportation is a form of movement that doesn't require you to spend movement.
As for whether or not teleportation counts as moving, how do you interpret the feature below? To me, this is another instance where the rules describe that teleportation counts as moving. How do you interpret it?
DM: Your character Vanishes. Your character Appears in the new location.
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.
Did anyone talk about falling being movement that doesn’t cost movement yet?
Several times, see also push/drag/Infestation/etc :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Has anyone talked about how motion is relative*, and that without an objective observer there is no way to guarantee that we aren't remaining stationary while the universe moves around us?
In a vacuum, does all motion create attacks of opportunity for all players in melee reach of one another?
Does the passage of time represent life moving beyond my threat range? Does death trigger an Attack of Opportunity against God?
Based on the Text of the PHB. All my arguments are backed by RAW and relevant rules quotes.
If your claim is the rules I quoted are somehow not how the game uses the words... that's sorta a you thing to work out.
So don't?
I've literally pointed to all of them. I genuinely, literally, non-figuratively quoted every single last instance of these words where they appeared in the combat rules.
You haven't though. "Movement" is always used in the rules in a different sense than "move/moving" is used.
....
As an aside though, what's with the "the rest of us" talk? The single highest Up-dooted comment on this entire topic is:
So, you are not only incorrect but not in any majority you seem to think you are. Most people have given up trying to show you how you're wrong, but I'm persistent. I believe anyone can learn if you just find the right approach.
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.
Falling moves you but isn't movement. It also doesn't cost movement. Yes, it has been discussed.
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.
Point to a definition of movement that defines away its normal usage. You still haven't done that, and are literally wasting everyone's time by not.
Kind of harsh to ask someone to prove a negative, isn't it?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm asking them to prove their point. The rules assume natural English unless they preclude a interpretation in some definition they make.
When the entire argument is that "This is the one and only way to interpret this word because the rules say so" then you'd imagine that the person making that argument would be able to point to a reason that you'd have to interpret a word in a very specific and unnatural way.
I don't think that Rav failing to post quotes and reasons is the issue here, the issue is that people have found them unpersuasive.
As near as I can tell, their arguments are:
It isn't that these arguments aren't coherent, or that they haven't pointed to where in the PHB they found them, but more that these arguments don't satisfy (1) the plain english tension of trying to coherently describe "move you without being movement", and how that's thus unlikely the meaning the plain-English-loving authors had in mind, (2) "move" is used many many many times throughout the PHB, in all sorts of spells and contexts, to describe changing positions on the battlefield, not just using "your move" on your turn, (3) the way that teleportation is brought up in the Opportunity Attack section itself demonstrates that the authors view it as a special type of "movement" that does not trigger OA's, (4) the plain english tension of trying to coherently describe "being moved so as to be in a square you were not in previously, but nevertheless not entering it" is unlikely to have been preferred by plain-English-loving authors, (5) numerous spell effects are rendered incoherent with such an interpretation, such as being untouched by damaging AOEs as long as you move into them with an action granting movement rather than "your move", and....
Well, the list goes on. Rav has made arguments, which many have not found persuasive. Others have made arguments, which Rav has not found persuasive. Repeating those arguments (especially in long posts with lots of different separate arguments) is not getting anyone anywhere either way. I believe Kotath in the other tread was the only poster I saw who was (partially) in Rav's camp, while several are in the other, but who knows how many silent readers are secretly rooting for them... without a poll, we'll never know :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Tossed up a basic poll for Teleportation/Booming Blade.
Feel free to participate in the collection of community opinion.
I almost completely agree, Chicken_Champ. I will just emphasize that none of the quotes that Rav has provided are anything but using "move" or "movement" in their natural language meanings and providing information/rules how motion behaves with certain parts of the game. Their quotes have not eliminated any natural language meanings or defined either of those words to exclude teleportation explicitly.
Sure sure. Your example is better.
Right. And, if you spend 5 ft of movement to Transport Via Plants you have moved while prone via teleportation. But teleportation, more broadly, isn't done on your move.
I agree if we're using the normal everyday English word to describe it and not the 5e game terms. But, if we're discussing it in game terms I see the argument for
1. "that teleportation is a form of moving that doesn't require you to spend movement."
but not
2. "that teleportation is a form of movement that doesn't require you to spend movement."
Version 1 Is a valid argument. Even if I disagree with it. It's valid.
I don't infer things this way. I firmly believe that if the game treated teleportation as movement it would just straight up say so. Since it doesn't, the most you can gather from a phrase like that is that 'a type of teleport effect, might, somewhere, someday, be a move, and, if used in this situation, doesn't count as moving for the purposes of this spell'.
Although, I'm gradually changing my take on this type of teleport reference. Some people seem almost eager to misunderstand it as a move, or even as movement. For something that never once shows up in the rules, not a single time... a few people really are voraciously defending the incorrect notion that "teleportation is movement". I mean, not...once is it ever said in the rules. Yet here we are, with many people swearing up and down that's how it works "for reasons" yet, never once appearing in the text of the rules that "teleportation is movement". Clearly, people are primed for this type of misunderstanding for some reason.
I suspect that is because teleportation doesn't really exist. It is something fundamentally foreign to our experience, and our reality. Common Sense can't guide your intuition on it because you very literally don't have experience with it. Nothing you've ever known in your life behaves the way teleportation would. So, naturally, it is just something people are going to need extra clarity on. Essentially, because it's not real and none of us have a shared experience of what it is or how it works...It could behave any number of ways, so the authors need to be very clear how they envision it to work.
So, I can see that side of things too. When writing abilities you must also take your audience's perception into account. If you're at all worried that people don't know the difference between teleporting and moving, then, toss that in there to be extra clear and not have any misunderstanding. Tacking on "without teleporting" makes it super clear to the person using the ability that teleportation doesn't count as moving for triggering this effect. Even if they would have been primed to think otherwise, now it is clear. Teleporting isn't moving (for sure not for this effect).
I find it is sorta odd that people here then look for examples like this in search of a misunderstanding. That's not directed your way even if it sounded like it was. It is just that ability is written to be clear that teleporting never triggers the on-move stuff. But, then, somehow that clarity is used to try to craft the argument that teleportation is moving. I don't think we need to find hidden scraps of knowledge secreted away into the corners of the rules that can only be deciphered by inference. The rules just aren't written that way.
You spend movement on your turn's move, an amount up to your speed, this allows you to change location (ie move). <--- In no uncertain terms the game uses these words in this way, repeatedly. Directly. Nothing about this needs to be inferred. Just black and white. Ie is RAW. The game just doesn't talk about teleportation the same way.
Our intuition isn't trustworthy on effects that cannot exist in our reality. So, trust the RAW. What does the book actually say? We know it never says "teleportation is movement" that is for sure.
Questions for the Teleportation is Move(ment) crowd(s):
Obviously misty stepping before a long jump doesn't count as moving 10 ft. The whole purpose of the requirement is to demonstrate the character has built up speed and momentum. Teleportation doesn't do that. So teleporting isn't moving.
If you think teleporting is moving, then... "while within the area" ... they ... "moved 30 ft". That's 12d4 damage? Does this actually make any sense though? They never went through those spaces... seems like one of those instances where misapplying the definition of movement to teleportation has derived nonsensical results.
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.
Yes. Anything that moves you... is moving you. Movement comes in types, and is synonymous/interchangeable with speed. Move/Moving are not synonymous with movement nor speed. Movement is spent, to allow you to move. You can be moved by other effects/people/abilities etc.
I haven't said anything like this in this thread whatsoever. Nothing of the sort. I've stuck purely to the discussion of whether teleportation is or is not move(ment).
Eh, they do satisfy plain English. You could even plug ""move you without being movement" in as a definition for teleportation in many contexts outside 5e.
Yes, I've said as much. Did you miss the massive post with all the colors? 2 colors for different concepts of what move means. Sometimes as part of your turn, sometimes and changing locations. I even half colored when it was both.
Or they recognized a portion of their audience might recognize it as such even if it wasn't. Especially for a concept we lack shared experience with. You've never teleported, but you've probably walked, jumped, climbed, swam, etc. We have practical real-world understanding of these things, but not teleportation. So being precise in the rules about it makes sense, the added clarifying bits are helpful to the reader.
Nothing, at all, to do with my points in this thread.
Nothing, at all, to do with my points in this thread.
The list really does go on! It goes on so far... Apparently I even made arguments I didn''t actually make. Rofl.
It isn't just me... Teleportation is not movement. That's just a fact. Unless someone can quote the rule they're referencing that says "Teleportation is movement" then I'm for sure not getting convinced. It actually needs to be in the rules for it to be... a rule.
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.
In what context do you ... in natural English... "spend movement"?
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.