Dimension Door Issue

Quote from Maruntoryx >>

Quote from sevidz >>

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. 

 The damage isn't pointless. The caster could assume that there was a room 200 feet north in the dungeon and try to teleport there, but if that's just stone, then the caster takes the damage. And 4D6 really isn't a lot. It would barely down a level 1 Barbarian.

 I got maps and terrain, its impossible not to see where you are.  And when I say pointless, I mean very rarely will that rule need to be enforced. 
If this spell ignores total cover and doesn't need vision, then it will almost never happen. 

Sevidz, how would you rule a character using Dimension Door to go 30 feet straight down if they were told there is a cave directly under them 30 feet?  And there is, in fact, a cave in the exact spot with an unoccupied space where they can successfully teleport to.  They specifically use this justification from the spell description: "or one you can describe by stating distance and direction, such as “200 feet straight downward” or “300 feet upward to the northwest at a 45-degree angle.”

They have never been there nor seen it but have been told it exists.  Would you rule that the spell fails because they can't see it?  If so, how do you justify ignoring the specific quoted line from the spell?  Specific rules beat general rules.  This is a specific rule.  I'm genuinely curious.

"Exceptions Supersede General Rules

General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee attacks use Strength and ranged attacks use Dexterity. That’s a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn’t explicitly say otherwise.

The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee attacks using your Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule."

Quote from sevidz >>

Quote from Maruntoryx >>

Quote from sevidz >>

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. 

 The damage isn't pointless. The caster could assume that there was a room 200 feet north in the dungeon and try to teleport there, but if that's just stone, then the caster takes the damage. And 4D6 really isn't a lot. It would barely down a level 1 Barbarian.

 I got maps and terrain, its impossible not to see where you are.  And when I say pointless, I mean very rarely will that rule need to be enforced. 
If this spell ignores total cover and doesn't need vision, then it will almost never happen. 

 Sometimes you don't use maps. Sometimes the players haven't seen the entire map yet, and don't know what's 500 feet farther into the dungeon. It very much can happen, because you can't know where exactly "100 feet thataway!" will take you if you've never been there, and never been told what's thataway.

1. It's a game

2. It's a magic spell, MAGIC...

3. It is clearly stated in the spell description

4. If I (in reality) look at a building I can easily visualize what it looks like around the corner I can see.  I might be wrong, there might be something there, but I have no issue forming a picture in my mind of what it should look like.

5. They are expending a 4th level spell to achieve something, nitpicking it is a bit pedantic

6. When this many players disagree with you on the Rules Forum you are wrong.  It happens, pretty frequently to many of us.