*This is a 5e rules question, but rules from other editions as well as lore is welcome in this discussion if clearly referred to as such*
Simple question, as seen in the poll: Is plane shifting regarded as teleportation in D&D?
Neither teleportation nor plane shifting is defined in the rules as far as I know. However, both terms are used often in the rules and seem to specify two different effects, namely:
Teleportation allows travel to another location on the same plane of existence.
Plane shifting allows travel to another plane of existence.
Evidence of their inherent difference can be found in the numerous spells that reference both effects as separate categories (examples below).
You might wonder if the distinction even matters. Often it doesn't, but in some cases, like in the case of Opportunity Attacks, it does.
Opportunity Attacks You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction
Bonus question: How many types of planar travel exist? Spells like Hallow seem to differentiate between Extradimensional and Interplanar travel.
As I described in the other thread that I'm presuming spawned this one, my interpretation is that Plane Shifting is a type of teleportation that allows planar travel as a destination, whereas the teleportation allowed by normal teleport spells only allows travel in the current plane. Since "teleport" is undefined in the game as a general term, I think that it (as a general term) can be extended to cover plane shifting as the arrival/departure mechanics are always described similarly. If they ever define what general "teleport" means, I may change this position.
I would generally rule - given that I'm not aware of any RAW covering it, necessitating a houserule - that plane shifting is teleporting, only instead of teleporting in the 3 spatial dimensions you're used to, you're teleporting in some fifth dimension (or more, could be fifth through seventh or the like) that lets you traverse planar barriers. So I would, for example, have Plane Shiftnot provoke an OA. This ruling is rooted in the nature of the D&D cosmology as I understand it, and my understanding is largely informed by the 3.5 take on it, but I don't think 5E is different from that in ways that matter here.
Neither is a rules term so ultimately it's impossible to give a single categorical answer that applies to every context.
Generally, when a rule is concerned with movement, displacement, or entering/leaving an area (e.g. opportunity attacks), plane shifting is going to be equivalent to teleporting.
In older editions teleportation explicitly involved traveling through the Astral Plane, and failed teleports could even leave you stranded there if there was no suitable location for you to appear. In that regard the main difference between the two was the destination. 5e doesn't give a narrative explanation for teleportation anymore though, so take that bit of lore with a grain of salt.
Neither is a rules term so ultimately it's impossible to give a single categorical answer that applies to every context.
Generally, when a rule is concerned with movement, displacement, or entering/leaving an area (e.g. opportunity attacks), plane shifting is going to be equivalent to teleporting.
In older editions teleportation explicitly involved traveling through the Astral Plane, and failed teleports could even leave you stranded there if there was no suitable location for you to appear. In that regard the main difference between the two was the destination. 5e doesn't give a narrative explanation for teleportation anymore though, so take that bit of lore with a grain of salt.
You don't consider the fact that the Private Sanctum spell explicitly prevents either Teleportation or Planar travel or both to suggest anything regarding the specific use of the two terms?
I see what you are saying. Yes they are technically not the same thing, but I see no reason to not treat them as the same as far as ability to react to them go.
Is there a rules implication? Are you trying to imply that maybe an extraplanar travel spell might allow, for example, an adjacent creature to take an opportunity attack when the creature travels away?
No Teleportation is not planeshifting as you normally teleport only on the same plane of existance while spells like Plane Shift, Blink, Etherealness does not teleport you, they take you on a different plane entirely.
Neither is a rules term so ultimately it's impossible to give a single categorical answer that applies to every context.
Generally, when a rule is concerned with movement, displacement, or entering/leaving an area (e.g. opportunity attacks), plane shifting is going to be equivalent to teleporting.
In older editions teleportation explicitly involved traveling through the Astral Plane, and failed teleports could even leave you stranded there if there was no suitable location for you to appear. In that regard the main difference between the two was the destination. 5e doesn't give a narrative explanation for teleportation anymore though, so take that bit of lore with a grain of salt.
You don't consider the fact that the Private Sanctum spell explicitly prevents either Teleportation or Planar travel or both to suggest anything regarding the specific use of the two terms?
I agree with IC, and along those lines, I don't think PS allowing you to pick exactly one to block is incompatible, except that PS necessarily means Prime Material to Prime Material teleportation is unquestionably not astral (or ethereal) travel in 5E, if there was any doubt. It just means you can tell PS "block teleportation where the destination is the same plane as the beginning", just like you can tell it to do the same only if the two planes differ.
Is there a rules implication? Are you trying to imply that maybe an extraplanar travel spell might allow, for example, an adjacent creature to take an opportunity attack when the creature travels away?
Yes that is the example I outlined in OP where the distinction seems to matter.
Well, then I would say that while a spell can be one or both, the reason that they're described distinctly is probably for something like etherealness, rather than for you to split hairs on whether instantaneous transportation is teleportation or not. But for sure, transportation implies movement, so if plane shift isn't teleportation, then it seems RAW that you'd get an OA on a plane shifting creature, though that isn't how I'd probably play it.
Neither is a rules term so ultimately it's impossible to give a single categorical answer that applies to every context.
Generally, when a rule is concerned with movement, displacement, or entering/leaving an area (e.g. opportunity attacks), plane shifting is going to be equivalent to teleporting.
In older editions teleportation explicitly involved traveling through the Astral Plane, and failed teleports could even leave you stranded there if there was no suitable location for you to appear. In that regard the main difference between the two was the destination. 5e doesn't give a narrative explanation for teleportation anymore though, so take that bit of lore with a grain of salt.
You don't consider the fact that the Private Sanctum spell explicitly prevents either Teleportation or Planar travel or both to suggest anything regarding the specific use of the two terms?
I agree with IC, and along those lines, I don't think PS allowing you to pick exactly one to block is incompatible, except that PS necessarily means Prime Material to Prime Material teleportation is unquestionably not astral (or ethereal) travel in 5E, if there was any doubt. It just means you can tell PS "block teleportation where the destination is the same plane as the beginning", just like you can tell it to do the same only if the two planes differ.
And the way the rulebooks seem to distinguish between those two types of travel is by calling one type "teleportation" and the other "planar travel". The assumption that planar travel is the same as "teleporting between planes" doesn't seem to be based on anything but our limited vocabulary in that regard.
If opportunity attacks meant to include planar travel as an exemption, would it not state so explicitly like all other spells seem to do by mentioning both teleportation and planar travel?
You don't consider the fact that the Private Sanctum spell explicitly prevents either Teleportation or Planar travel or both to suggest anything regarding the specific use of the two terms?
I think it suggests something about how Private Sanctum is using those words. But that doesn't imply every other rule or game feature is going to use those phrases in exactly the same way. Case in point, if you ask me the opportunity attack rules are using "teleport" to mean both intra- and inter-plane travel, unlike in Private Sanctum where it clearly means the former.
And the way the rulebooks seem to distinguish between those two types of travel is by calling one type "teleportation" and the other "planar travel". The assumption that planar travel is the same as "teleporting between planes" doesn't seem to be based on anything but our limited vocabulary in that regard.
If opportunity attacks meant to include planar travel as an exemption, would it not state so explicitly like all other spells seem to do by mentioning both teleportation and planar travel?
Our limited vocabulary in that regard is how 5E is written - the devs relentlessly use "plain English" (that's their phrasing, not mine), rather than defining game terms. Any argument from how English works as a language is a valid rules argument in 5E.
No, you're assuming the devs are radically more competent than they are. The RAW we have is full of counterexamples to how you think the rules work, something I can say with confidence despite not being confident I know how you think the rules work because I am confident the RAW doesn't hold up to any analysis of consistency. Here are ways we know the RAW does not work:
You cannot conclude that a rule says everything you need to know to understand the rule.
The missing information may be absent from the rulebook, such as figuring out what "melee weapon attack" means.
The missing information may be present in the rulebook somewhere else, such as figuring out how bonus action spellcasting works.
You cannot conclude everything a rule says needs to be said - that is, you can't assume that because a rule says something, if you wrote the same rule without that something, the rule would change.
So I am absolutely, positively convinced we can make no intrinsic conclusions about the RAI based on the fact that the rule exempting teleports from OAs doesn't explicitly mention planar travel. It could be that WOTC intends for planar travel to be a kind of teleportation, and they just never say that anywhere, as in the intended definition of melee weapon attack, which we only know from the SAC. It could be that WOTC intends for them to be distinct, but neither provokes an OA, and they just forgot to give us that as a rule, like when they originally forgot to tell us wizards know every spell in their spellbook (that one was changed in an errata). It could be that WOTC intends for planar travel to provoke OAs. I have no idea, and neither do you. All we can do is try to make our table rulings as reasonable as possible, despite all of us having distinct definitions of reasonableness.
If opportunity attacks meant to include planar travel as an exemption, would it not state so explicitly like all other spells seem to do by mentioning both teleportation and planar travel?
Our limited vocabulary in that regard is how 5E is written - the devs relentlessly use "plain English" (that's their phrasing, not mine), rather than defining game terms. Any argument from how English works as a language is a valid rules argument in 5E.
No, you're assuming the devs are radically more competent than they are.
I get that players want the rules to be clear, and I also get that 5e is full of holes and questionable rules. But as someone that homebrews the rules a lot it also ruffles my feathers to see reasonable design tradeoffs being portrayed as incompetence. There's lots of valid reasons why they might've chosen not to add a general rule for something.
If the devs had dedicated a section of the core rules to cover all things teleportation, new players would have to 1) recognize that "teleport" is a keyword when they come across it and 2) interrupt whatever spell or class feature they were reading to look up the general rules of teleports. Do that with too many concepts and you create a lot of friction. Look at the 3.5e version of Bane - in addition to most of the stuff 5e codifies into rules the 3.5e version also throws the concepts of divine focus, compulsions, mind-affecting, fear effects, spell-specific counters/dispels and spell resistance at you. 4e isn't much better, asking you to remember fun things like the difference between a burst area effect and a blast area effect. Having rules text that's self-contained and doesn't require you to go jumping off to some other section of the rules is a big pro. That goes double for things printed outside the Player's Handbook, like pretty much all monster stat blocks.
Adding a core rule also adds one more thing that can grind the game to a halt mid-session. I just had a session where we had to stop and check if Spare the Dying would help a drowning person. On the one hand, we got a clear answer since the game does have suffocation rules, but on the other, we all stopped to look up the rules when it might've been faster to have the DM just make a call. Then there's other pitfalls like taking the decision of how to handle something out of the DM's hand, adding to the printing cost of the core books, and potentially causing players to go "too long; didn't read" when looking at class features and spells. Some already come pretty close (e.g. Wild Shape).
So going back to the opportunity attack rules: how often is that going to come up, really? I've been playing 5e since 2017 and still haven't been in an adventure that involved any kind of instant plane shifting. (There was Curse of Strahd, but the players usually get to Barovia through overland travel.) The mere mention of planar travel would be a needless distraction I'd wager most players will never have to worry about.
I'd be open to saying that all plane shifting is teleportation, but not all teleportation is plane shifting. Shifting to the Ethereal Plane would be the only one that might work differently, since geography/architecture/creatures are often shared between both planes as being in the same location, and one doesn't so much "move" between the two planes as they do change a quality of their being by becoming "ethereal" or "material."
RAW, it isn't that there's anything which calls plane shifting teleportation, and there are several spells which distinguish, like Private Sanctum. But RAI/in effect, I think that any time you're talking about magically vanishing from one place and appearing in another (whether that's teleportation, plane shifting, being summoned/created, etc.), we can probably call all of that similar-enough for the purpose of following true teleportation's lead for interaction with things like OAs.
Well, private sanctum might be referencing planar travel in the sense of etherealness. I would say that any spell could be both teleportation and planar travel, but some may only be one or the other.
You don't consider the fact that the Private Sanctum spell explicitly prevents either Teleportation or Planar travel or both to suggest anything regarding the specific use of the two terms?
I think it suggests something about how Private Sanctum is using those words. But that doesn't imply every other rule or game feature is going to use those phrases in exactly the same way. Case in point, if you ask me the opportunity attack rules are using "teleport" to mean both intra- and inter-plane travel, unlike in Private Sanctum where it clearly means the former.
I'd say that when all spells (to my knowledge) having to do with both teleportation or plane shifting differentiate between the two, it suggests a more general understanding of the two terms in my opinion.
From a RAW perspective, if I created a Private Sanctum which prevented teleportation but allowed planar travel, I'd find it mildly frustrating if my DM ruled that planar travel triggered opportunity attacks in the area when I specifically chose to prevent the option that explicitly triggers opportunity attacks. If they wanted Opportunity Attacks to exempt both teleportation and planar travel, they could easily have worded the rule like the moving-while-prone rules (see below), instead of specifically calling out teleportation full-stop.
Being Prone To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation.
And the way the rulebooks seem to distinguish between those two types of travel is by calling one type "teleportation" and the other "planar travel". The assumption that planar travel is the same as "teleporting between planes" doesn't seem to be based on anything but our limited vocabulary in that regard.
If opportunity attacks meant to include planar travel as an exemption, would it not state so explicitly like all other spells seem to do by mentioning both teleportation and planar travel?
Our limited vocabulary in that regard is how 5E is written - the devs relentlessly use "plain English" (that's their phrasing, not mine), rather than defining game terms. Any argument from how English works as a language is a valid rules argument in 5E.
No, you're assuming the devs are radically more competent than they are. The RAW we have is full of counterexamples to how you think the rules work, something I can say with confidence despite not being confident I know how you think the rules work because I am confident the RAW doesn't hold up to any analysis of consistency. Here are ways we know the RAW does not work:
You cannot conclude that a rule says everything you need to know to understand the rule.
The missing information may be absent from the rulebook, such as figuring out what "melee weapon attack" means.
The missing information may be present in the rulebook somewhere else, such as figuring out how bonus action spellcasting works.
You cannot conclude everything a rule says needs to be said - that is, you can't assume that because a rule says something, if you wrote the same rule without that something, the rule would change.
So I am absolutely, positively convinced we can make no intrinsic conclusions about the RAI based on the fact that the rule exempting teleports from OAs doesn't explicitly mention planar travel. It could be that WOTC intends for planar travel to be a kind of teleportation, and they just never say that anywhere, as in the intended definition of melee weapon attack, which we only know from the SAC. It could be that WOTC intends for them to be distinct, but neither provokes an OA, and they just forgot to give us that as a rule, like when they originally forgot to tell us wizards know every spell in their spellbook (that one was changed in an errata). It could be that WOTC intends for planar travel to provoke OAs. I have no idea, and neither do you. All we can do is try to make our table rulings as reasonable as possible, despite all of us having distinct definitions of reasonableness.
If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that we don't know whether planar travel counts as teleportation, both from a RAW and RAI perspective, yes? I agree, as none of the terms have been defined. That being the case, shouldn't effects that specifically exempts teleportation be assumed to not exempt planar travel as well? As I see it, while the two terms have not been explicitly defined in the rules, they are explicitly differentiated between in the rules, which suggest that they are different and should be treated as such.
When something "appears" somewhere... As they do when summoned/conjured/plane-shifted/teleported/or even materialized from nothing in an act of creation... "Appearing" isn't a type of movement, it isn't moving. And all these threads spawned because some people refuse to accept that.
Edit: The word you're looking for, by the way, is Conjuration. Plane Shifting is conjuration, summoning... Conjuration. Teleportation? Conjuration. They're all Conjuration. (With a few exceptions, for reasons) If you teleport yourself 30ft away you've conjured yourself into the new space. It is the same type of magic as summoning a creature, you conjure something from elsewhere to you. Just a different application of the same process. Conjuring.
Conjuration spells involve the transportation of objects and creatures from one location to another. Some spells summon creatures or objects to the caster's side, whereas others allow the caster to teleport to another location. Some conjurations create objects or effects out of nothing.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
*This is a 5e rules question, but rules from other editions as well as lore is welcome in this discussion if clearly referred to as such*
Simple question, as seen in the poll: Is plane shifting regarded as teleportation in D&D?
Neither teleportation nor plane shifting is defined in the rules as far as I know. However, both terms are used often in the rules and seem to specify two different effects, namely:
Evidence of their inherent difference can be found in the numerous spells that reference both effects as separate categories (examples below).
You might wonder if the distinction even matters. Often it doesn't, but in some cases, like in the case of Opportunity Attacks, it does.
Bonus question: How many types of planar travel exist? Spells like Hallow seem to differentiate between Extradimensional and Interplanar travel.
As I described in the other thread that I'm presuming spawned this one, my interpretation is that Plane Shifting is a type of teleportation that allows planar travel as a destination, whereas the teleportation allowed by normal teleport spells only allows travel in the current plane. Since "teleport" is undefined in the game as a general term, I think that it (as a general term) can be extended to cover plane shifting as the arrival/departure mechanics are always described similarly. If they ever define what general "teleport" means, I may change this position.
I would generally rule - given that I'm not aware of any RAW covering it, necessitating a houserule - that plane shifting is teleporting, only instead of teleporting in the 3 spatial dimensions you're used to, you're teleporting in some fifth dimension (or more, could be fifth through seventh or the like) that lets you traverse planar barriers. So I would, for example, have Plane Shift not provoke an OA. This ruling is rooted in the nature of the D&D cosmology as I understand it, and my understanding is largely informed by the 3.5 take on it, but I don't think 5E is different from that in ways that matter here.
Neither is a rules term so ultimately it's impossible to give a single categorical answer that applies to every context.
Generally, when a rule is concerned with movement, displacement, or entering/leaving an area (e.g. opportunity attacks), plane shifting is going to be equivalent to teleporting.
In older editions teleportation explicitly involved traveling through the Astral Plane, and failed teleports could even leave you stranded there if there was no suitable location for you to appear. In that regard the main difference between the two was the destination. 5e doesn't give a narrative explanation for teleportation anymore though, so take that bit of lore with a grain of salt.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
You don't consider the fact that the Private Sanctum spell explicitly prevents either Teleportation or Planar travel or both to suggest anything regarding the specific use of the two terms?
I see what you are saying. Yes they are technically not the same thing, but I see no reason to not treat them as the same as far as ability to react to them go.
Is there a rules implication? Are you trying to imply that maybe an extraplanar travel spell might allow, for example, an adjacent creature to take an opportunity attack when the creature travels away?
No Teleportation is not planeshifting as you normally teleport only on the same plane of existance while spells like Plane Shift, Blink, Etherealness does not teleport you, they take you on a different plane entirely.
I agree with IC, and along those lines, I don't think PS allowing you to pick exactly one to block is incompatible, except that PS necessarily means Prime Material to Prime Material teleportation is unquestionably not astral (or ethereal) travel in 5E, if there was any doubt. It just means you can tell PS "block teleportation where the destination is the same plane as the beginning", just like you can tell it to do the same only if the two planes differ.
Yes that is the example I outlined in OP where the distinction seems to matter.
Well, then I would say that while a spell can be one or both, the reason that they're described distinctly is probably for something like etherealness, rather than for you to split hairs on whether instantaneous transportation is teleportation or not. But for sure, transportation implies movement, so if plane shift isn't teleportation, then it seems RAW that you'd get an OA on a plane shifting creature, though that isn't how I'd probably play it.
And the way the rulebooks seem to distinguish between those two types of travel is by calling one type "teleportation" and the other "planar travel". The assumption that planar travel is the same as "teleporting between planes" doesn't seem to be based on anything but our limited vocabulary in that regard.
If opportunity attacks meant to include planar travel as an exemption, would it not state so explicitly like all other spells seem to do by mentioning both teleportation and planar travel?
I think it suggests something about how Private Sanctum is using those words. But that doesn't imply every other rule or game feature is going to use those phrases in exactly the same way. Case in point, if you ask me the opportunity attack rules are using "teleport" to mean both intra- and inter-plane travel, unlike in Private Sanctum where it clearly means the former.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
So I am absolutely, positively convinced we can make no intrinsic conclusions about the RAI based on the fact that the rule exempting teleports from OAs doesn't explicitly mention planar travel. It could be that WOTC intends for planar travel to be a kind of teleportation, and they just never say that anywhere, as in the intended definition of melee weapon attack, which we only know from the SAC. It could be that WOTC intends for them to be distinct, but neither provokes an OA, and they just forgot to give us that as a rule, like when they originally forgot to tell us wizards know every spell in their spellbook (that one was changed in an errata). It could be that WOTC intends for planar travel to provoke OAs. I have no idea, and neither do you. All we can do is try to make our table rulings as reasonable as possible, despite all of us having distinct definitions of reasonableness.
I get that players want the rules to be clear, and I also get that 5e is full of holes and questionable rules. But as someone that homebrews the rules a lot it also ruffles my feathers to see reasonable design tradeoffs being portrayed as incompetence. There's lots of valid reasons why they might've chosen not to add a general rule for something.
If the devs had dedicated a section of the core rules to cover all things teleportation, new players would have to 1) recognize that "teleport" is a keyword when they come across it and 2) interrupt whatever spell or class feature they were reading to look up the general rules of teleports. Do that with too many concepts and you create a lot of friction. Look at the 3.5e version of Bane - in addition to most of the stuff 5e codifies into rules the 3.5e version also throws the concepts of divine focus, compulsions, mind-affecting, fear effects, spell-specific counters/dispels and spell resistance at you. 4e isn't much better, asking you to remember fun things like the difference between a burst area effect and a blast area effect. Having rules text that's self-contained and doesn't require you to go jumping off to some other section of the rules is a big pro. That goes double for things printed outside the Player's Handbook, like pretty much all monster stat blocks.
Adding a core rule also adds one more thing that can grind the game to a halt mid-session. I just had a session where we had to stop and check if Spare the Dying would help a drowning person. On the one hand, we got a clear answer since the game does have suffocation rules, but on the other, we all stopped to look up the rules when it might've been faster to have the DM just make a call. Then there's other pitfalls like taking the decision of how to handle something out of the DM's hand, adding to the printing cost of the core books, and potentially causing players to go "too long; didn't read" when looking at class features and spells. Some already come pretty close (e.g. Wild Shape).
So going back to the opportunity attack rules: how often is that going to come up, really? I've been playing 5e since 2017 and still haven't been in an adventure that involved any kind of instant plane shifting. (There was Curse of Strahd, but the players usually get to Barovia through overland travel.) The mere mention of planar travel would be a needless distraction I'd wager most players will never have to worry about.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'd be open to saying that all plane shifting is teleportation, but not all teleportation is plane shifting. Shifting to the Ethereal Plane would be the only one that might work differently, since geography/architecture/creatures are often shared between both planes as being in the same location, and one doesn't so much "move" between the two planes as they do change a quality of their being by becoming "ethereal" or "material."
RAW, it isn't that there's anything which calls plane shifting teleportation, and there are several spells which distinguish, like Private Sanctum. But RAI/in effect, I think that any time you're talking about magically vanishing from one place and appearing in another (whether that's teleportation, plane shifting, being summoned/created, etc.), we can probably call all of that similar-enough for the purpose of following true teleportation's lead for interaction with things like OAs.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Well, private sanctum might be referencing planar travel in the sense of etherealness. I would say that any spell could be both teleportation and planar travel, but some may only be one or the other.
I'd say that when all spells (to my knowledge) having to do with both teleportation or plane shifting differentiate between the two, it suggests a more general understanding of the two terms in my opinion.
From a RAW perspective, if I created a Private Sanctum which prevented teleportation but allowed planar travel, I'd find it mildly frustrating if my DM ruled that planar travel triggered opportunity attacks in the area when I specifically chose to prevent the option that explicitly triggers opportunity attacks. If they wanted Opportunity Attacks to exempt both teleportation and planar travel, they could easily have worded the rule like the moving-while-prone rules (see below), instead of specifically calling out teleportation full-stop.
If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that we don't know whether planar travel counts as teleportation, both from a RAW and RAI perspective, yes? I agree, as none of the terms have been defined. That being the case, shouldn't effects that specifically exempts teleportation be assumed to not exempt planar travel as well? As I see it, while the two terms have not been explicitly defined in the rules, they are explicitly differentiated between in the rules, which suggest that they are different and should be treated as such.
When something "appears" somewhere... As they do when summoned/conjured/plane-shifted/teleported/or even materialized from nothing in an act of creation... "Appearing" isn't a type of movement, it isn't moving. And all these threads spawned because some people refuse to accept that.
Edit: The word you're looking for, by the way, is Conjuration. Plane Shifting is conjuration, summoning... Conjuration. Teleportation? Conjuration. They're all Conjuration. (With a few exceptions, for reasons) If you teleport yourself 30ft away you've conjured yourself into the new space. It is the same type of magic as summoning a creature, you conjure something from elsewhere to you. Just a different application of the same process. Conjuring.
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.