Dimension Door Issue

Quote from sevidz >>

IF DD is asking of the caster to visualize the area he will be, does he need to be familiar with it.  

It must be one that the caster can visualize. That means enough information to come up with an image of the location. The exact quality required is not specified.

Quote from sevidz >>

It literally says visualize...I know what that word means...

In order to visualize you need to have seen it at least once, otherwise it is fantasy and it doesn't count.

If the player wants to cast it at a random location as a gamble I'm fine with that, but you better be sure it will be exactly how much he can see, no further.

 It says "one you can visualize" as one of the options for choosing your destination. If you're in range, you can pop back to your room in the inn, as long as you're in range, even if you don't know where you are in relation to it.

This is unrelated to "one you can describe by stating distance and direction". That's straight up relative position, no other requirements.

In order to visualize you need to have seen it at least once, otherwise it is fantasy and it doesn't count.

Again, I don't think you have the correct definition of of a term you are using, today the word is "visualize".

If you are playing a sport you visualize before the game making "X" play.  In golf it would be driving the ball off a tee, in basketball making a 3 point shot, in baseball recognizing a breaking ball and making contact, etc. etc. 

You visualize what you are describing as fantasy.  You may never have experienced any of what you are visualizing, but yet you can still visualize.

I know that the Eifel tower exists, in what country it is and how it looks like...but how to get to it, no idea. 

All of you seem to miss this somehow. 

Even if I point at it, I have no idea how far it is from where I am.

So no, I am not convinced. 

Also, basketball players can visualize what a basketball looks like...they held it and seen it at least once. And visualizing a play is just planning...not visualizing. 

Still thank you for your contribution.  

Lower the tone and attitude and try again. 

This was very helpful, thank you. 

Thank you, very helpfu.

In that case the failure condition is irrelevant...

Thank you, very helpful.

All valid points, the caster does not need to see " SELF " 

But what about the destination...the limit is exactly how much it can see. My problem with visualization is that the player saw the location was safe, however the mini had no clue. 

It sounds like you're convinced of your own call and don't want to listen to the reasoning of other commenters. That's fine, but just know that every other person posting here has told you that you have the incorrect interpretation. It's your table ultimately so do what you want, but limiting a 4th level spell in this way feels like the game you're playing has a hint of DM vs Player. I personally am not a fan of that style of play. 

I also agree with the other posters regarding the interpretation of the spell.

Quote from sevidz >>

All valid points, the caster does not need to see " SELF " 

But what about the destination...the limit is exactly how much it can see. My problem with visualization is that the player saw the location was safe, however the mini had no clue. 

It has been pointed out to you several times in this thread that the spell is not limited to what you can see, and has a specific mechanic for what happens if you choose a location that's not safe. If the problem is that the player is conflating player knowledge with character knowledge, that's a separate issue that has nothing to do with how the spell works.

FYI, if you don't quote the post you're replying to, there's no way for anyone else to know which one you're replying to.

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quote from sevidz >>

All valid points, the caster does not need to see " SELF " 

But what about the destination...the limit is exactly how much it can see. My problem with visualization is that the player saw the location was safe, however the mini had no clue. 

It has been pointed out to you several times in this thread that the spell is not limited to what you can see, and has a specific mechanic for what happens if you choose a location that's not safe. If the problem is that the player is conflating player knowledge with character knowledge, that's a separate issue that has nothing to do with how the spell works.

FYI, if you don't quote the post you're replying to, there's no way for anyone else to know which one you're replying to.

 Thank you for pointing this out, had no idea how quote worked. 
Well, thank you for answering my question, it was metagaming all along. 

I understand DD much better now.

Quote from sevidz >>

All valid points, the caster does not need to see " SELF " 

But what about the destination...the limit is exactly how much it can see. My problem with visualization is that the player saw the location was safe, however the mini had no clue. 

If the PC teleporting to a place the player can see and the PC cannot really bothers you so much, tell the player that if they want to DD there to a roll a "luck" check. Tell them it's a 50% chance of the space being clear, 50% chance of the space being occupied and if it's occupied they'll take damage and be shunted to the closest empty square.

I think though, even that much is a shade adversarial, but it's up to you.

Also, basketball players can visualize what a basketball looks like...they held it and seen it at least once. And visualizing a play is just planning...not visualizing.

You again show a complete lack of understanding and incorrect interpretation.

A basketball player is not visualizing a basketball.  He is visualizing his body position, to include every part like arms, wrist, legs, how each limb is bent and at what angle.  He is visualizing the opponent in his face and how to position himself in relation to that opponent, he is visualizing the part of the court he is on and where the basket is in relation to himself.  The player is visualizing the crowd and the noise and what the background will look like.  

Your response I quoted matches your other responses.  It indicates that you actually have no idea what you are writing.  Based on what you have written, one can assume you came here assuming everyone will agree with you, but the opposite has happened.  Your interpretations are based on an obvious lack of knowledge of word definitions.  Your interpretations have been corrected by many and it appears that 100% of every poster has disagreed with your interpretations.

I can see your problem with the first paragraph.

The sentence it not perfect but just needs to be broken down to understand.

It can be a place you can see,( this coma is taking the place of the word 'or' not the word 'and')
one you can visualize, ( visualize could mean that you have seen a picture of the target area, OR you have a pretty good description of it but not perfect)
or one you can describe(the target area) by stating distance and direction, such as "200 feet straight downward" or "upward to the northwest at a 45- degree angle, 300 feet."

If you look at all the other teleport style spells they all pass through normal matter. Misty step goes through glass or a mirror. You just have to see the target area. The others you do not have to see the target area.

Like I have said before if you really didn't want the character to DD to that area then just put something he cant see inside the target area like a tree or wagon. If you really want to be a stickler the ground and the ceiling can could as an obstruction. But this will only work once then the player will always state a spot a few feet in the air And you will have to treat it as a simple jump down.

Quote from sevidz >>

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quote from sevidz >>

All valid points, the caster does not need to see " SELF " 

But what about the destination...the limit is exactly how much it can see. My problem with visualization is that the player saw the location was safe, however the mini had no clue. 

It has been pointed out to you several times in this thread that the spell is not limited to what you can see, and has a specific mechanic for what happens if you choose a location that's not safe. If the problem is that the player is conflating player knowledge with character knowledge, that's a separate issue that has nothing to do with how the spell works.

FYI, if you don't quote the post you're replying to, there's no way for anyone else to know which one you're replying to.

 Thank you for pointing this out, had no idea how quote worked. 
Well, thank you for answering my question, it was metagaming all along. 

I understand DD much better now.

 I don't know that we could say it was a "metagaming" issue. The player could see it was "safe", while the character/mini could not. Sure. But was there any reason for the character to not think it was safe? If the character is merely trying to get out of sight of enemies or something, then it would be totally reasonable for them to assume that being behind this corner is a better option than where they were initially. 

This is where it sounds iffy. You say: 

My problem with it was since he was never on this location and not familiar what is behind walls, he therefore cannot describe or imagine what he see's, so it would be purely based from the perspective or the player, not the figurine. The player saw it was safe, however the MINI could not even begin to imagine so it would be a gamble and he would receive 4d6 force damage, and the spell fails to teleport you. So to avoid that I suggested an area not directly obscured by line of sight in the same location ( out of danger ).

I think by "safe" you might mean "that there is nothing there to impede the teleportation (something that would cause the spell to fail and the damage to play out). I think this because your player said:

The argument was that I could describe the end position by seeing the corner of the building (the top-left corner of the gray block) and going a few feet behind it. Sure, I (the mini) don't see what's behind the building and if something were there I would get the 4d6 penalty and the wasted 5th level spell slot. 

So it seems like you (the DM) are saying that because the character couldn't know that there wasn't anything blocking their teleportation, then they would just take the damage and the spell would fail anyway, even if there wasn't anything to block the damage. But that's not how that should work. The character can choose to take that risk, and if there is something there then they take that damage. In this case, it doesn't seem like there was anything there to prevent the teleportation, so it should have worked. It's not a metagaming issue just because the Player knew there wasn't anything there to block the teleportation. The Character might also feel that there is a good chance there's nothing in the alley on the other side of the building and therefore is willing to take the gamble. 

If this kind of thing is going to play out as "metagaming" to you, then you might be better served covering your maps or using fog of war until a player has "explored" that area. 

The issue here isn't with dimension door, it's with table standards.

Visualization is not needed to teleport to a grid location. If you're on a battle map, someone can just point to a square and say "I want to go there". If 'there' happens to contain an obstacle, they fail and take damage, otherwise they move there.

The problem is that you revealed a portion of the map that the players had not seen yet, and thus the player knew the unseen location was safe. If you don't want players to metagame... don't reveal portions of the map that haven't been explored yet (this is a fair amount of extra work, so most DMs just decide not to care).

Quote from MaximusArael020 >>

Quote from sevidz >>

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quote from sevidz >>

All valid points, the caster does not need to see " SELF " 

But what about the destination...the limit is exactly how much it can see. My problem with visualization is that the player saw the location was safe, however the mini had no clue. 

It has been pointed out to you several times in this thread that the spell is not limited to what you can see, and has a specific mechanic for what happens if you choose a location that's not safe. If the problem is that the player is conflating player knowledge with character knowledge, that's a separate issue that has nothing to do with how the spell works.

FYI, if you don't quote the post you're replying to, there's no way for anyone else to know which one you're replying to.

 Thank you for pointing this out, had no idea how quote worked. 
Well, thank you for answering my question, it was metagaming all along. 

I understand DD much better now.

 I don't know that we could say it was a "metagaming" issue. The player could see it was "safe", while the character/mini could not. Sure. But was there any reason for the character to not think it was safe? If the character is merely trying to get out of sight of enemies or something, then it would be totally reasonable for them to assume that being behind this corner is a better option than where they were initially. 

This is where it sounds iffy. You say: 

My problem with it was since he was never on this location and not familiar what is behind walls, he therefore cannot describe or imagine what he see's, so it would be purely based from the perspective or the player, not the figurine. The player saw it was safe, however the MINI could not even begin to imagine so it would be a gamble and he would receive 4d6 force damage, and the spell fails to teleport you. So to avoid that I suggested an area not directly obscured by line of sight in the same location ( out of danger ).

 

I think by "safe" you might mean "that there is nothing there to impede the teleportation (something that would cause the spell to fail and the damage to play out). I think this because your player said:

The argument was that I could describe the end position by seeing the corner of the building (the top-left corner of the gray block) and going a few feet behind it. Sure, I (the mini) don't see what's behind the building and if something were there I would get the 4d6 penalty and the wasted 5th level spell slot. 

 

So it seems like you (the DM) are saying that because the character couldn't know that there wasn't anything blocking their teleportation, then they would just take the damage and the spell would fail anyway, even if there wasn't anything to block the damage. But that's not how that should work. The character can choose to take that risk, and if there is something there then they take that damage. In this case, it doesn't seem like there was anything there to prevent the teleportation, so it should have worked. It's not a metagaming issue just because the Player knew there wasn't anything there to block the teleportation. The Character might also feel that there is a good chance there's nothing in the alley on the other side of the building and therefore is willing to take the gamble. 

If this kind of thing is going to play out as "metagaming" to you, then you might be better served covering your maps or using fog of war until a player has "explored" that area. 

 

 Well then, if its a gamble, we can use the D100 to determine it. 

The Damage part of DD is then pointless, no player will willingly gamble to take that much damage. 
Still, thank you for your input. 

Using fog of war will sadly need to be an addition when obstacles are present.