Up to the DM. 5e doesn't really cover momentum as a rule in the game, and only lightly covers falling. (Compared to previous editions) Since there aren't any set rules on momentum, it's not addressed in the teleportation spell descriptions.
I've always used stuff like Misty Step as a way to jump off of cliffs without taking damage. Unless your DM has a good reason to violate Rule of Cool, there's no real way that having teleportation defuse momentum "breaks" anything, so he should probably let you do it.
It's a DM's call in 5e, but the 3e and 4e writers ruled to conserve momentum (relative to frame of reference of course).
For anyone interested in those historical rulings:
From the 3.5e FAQ: "If you’re plummeting toward the ground when you cast teleport to reach a safe spot, you’d still be “falling” and would therefore take damage as appropriate to the distance you actually fell before teleporting."
From the 4e Rules forum FAQ: "Is momentum conserved when teleporting? The designers lean towards yes"
From an article written on the subject by a 4e designer:
... If you throw a stone through a portal, it comes out the exit still flying through the air. I can't imagine anyone saying that the stone just drops to the ground with all of its momentum somehow absorbed by the portal. (If that were the case, you couldn't even step through. Force is force.) The same thing applies if you leap through; you come out the far end mid-leap...
... This type of teleportation, then, is intuitively correct—which means momentum is conserved...
... An important addendum to what's written above is that momentum should be conserved when jumping through a portal relative to the portal. If I step into a magic circle on a flying boat and emerge in a magic circle on the ground, I don't have the boat's momentum; I have my momentum relative to the circle I stepped into.
It's interesting to see that there's been a history of game designers thinking that way... but to the extent that they're not offering their opinion of how one type of teleportation could work, but rather trying to issue some sort of a rule clarification that teleportation in general works that way... I don't like it, smacks of after-the-fact revisionist intentionalism!!!
If all of those inferences about teleportation follow from the premise that a thrown stone, which would normally travel 30 feet, would necessarily travel its full remaining distance if teleported at some point along that trajectory... I call BS. I'm not sure that that's a given even for spells that involve transportation portals, let alone the larger group of all spells involving teleportation of objects or creatures. Certainly I can picture a teleportation portal that perfectly conserves momentum and direction... or I could picture one that violently expels travelers at a speed independent of any that they had when entering... or I could picture sort of a magical meniscus that traveler's must intentionally step through that dampens and reduces all momentum to zero... or I can picture a teleportation portal as being a simultaneous destruction of matter on one end and perfect reassembly at the other... or a stepping through an in-between space which follows different physics than the material plane.... All of these representations are supported in classic fiction
As far as I'm aware, the text of the spells in question in 5e are largely agnostic as to what is "really" going on. Some spells may imply conservation of momentum along a trajectory (see Arcane Gate, where moving from one gate to another exits "as if the two were adjacent to each other"), but others more commonly contain language that implies materialization at a static "point" (see e.g. Gate, Far Step, Dimension Door, Teleport, etc.). Even in 4e this interpretation feels overreaching, since it would conflate teleportation with physical movement, despite the fact that being "immobilized" did not in any way restrict movement by teleportation.
Ultimately we're all in agreement that at the end of the day this comes down to DM interpretation... it just really gets my dander up when designers try to come back after the fact and say "oh yeah, when designing this spell we definitely intended that momentum be conserved" when a) that isn't true, and b) unnecessarily restricts a flexibly-worded spell to only operate in the way that pops into the designers head right at the moment they're being asked.
it just really gets my dander up when designers try to come back after the fact and say "oh yeah, when designing this spell we definitely intended that momentum be conserved" when a) that isn't true, and b) unnecessarily restricts a flexibly-worded spell to only operate in the way that pops into the designers head right at the moment they're being asked.
I respect your preference (and I have no desire to get your dander up), but to be fair: this was across multiple editions/years/writers, was published in the official FAQ, and an article was written about it. Also, it seems in line with other clarifications about teleportation not removing effects: "If a creature is prone when it teleports, is it still prone when it reaches the destination space? The answer is yes. Teleportation does not set a prone creature upright. The principle behind this rule is that effects are not terminated by teleportation..."
Nothing about that officially-published "Teleportation: Rules of the Game" article mentions momentum one way or the other. To argue that because conditions like Prone (or its 4e and 3e equivalents) are preserved through a teleport that other miscellaneous non-game concepts like momentum must be as well… I'm not sure about the providence of that line of reasoning.
The 3.5e FAQ linked to is limited in application to a single spell (Teleport). 3.5 Teleport already invoked principles of deviated movement and damage within its text, so to say that this is a result of momentum is hardly sufficient to argue that all spells causing displacement generally function the same way, or that that reasoning should apply to spells in later editions that have no such concept of "missing your intended target" or running into things.
The remainder of the sources cited (the 4e faq, the designer article) are both actually just one source repackaged: the opinions of Steve Winter, which themselves spin off from the single flawed premise: "would it work this way? It certainly would in a movie". As I mentioned above, this is far from the only, or even the most common depiction of teleportation in movies. And he takes this position, despite acknowledging within his article that his best example of jump-teleport-jump momentum conservation explicitly breaks the action economy of the rules set that he was applying his reasoning... but he's "not interested in that," he's just interested in arbitrarily selecting a single way that magic works so that his world feels "less arbitrary" (the irony eludes him). His position boils down not to any reference to actual game design decisions that were made or principles that generally apply, but instead to him explicitly wanting to limit the options of DMs to use spells flexibly to match their "sense of theatrics."
There are no "3e and 4e writers" agreeing on this as claimed, only a single source (Steve Winters) who argues in favor of conservation of motion being a D&D truism. Given that Steve himself acknowledges that this is his personal opinion as a player and not a glimpse into the secret world of D&D game design... it's a pretty shaky foundation to build a multi-edition consensus off of.
Actually... on point #2 I'll concede though that in 3.5, if they released a FAQ describing how the spell Teleport worked, they did likely intend that to guide other spells and abilities causing teleportation effects. " In previous editions, the game had no overarching rules for teleportation. Instead, each teleportation spell or ability defined how its version of teleportation worked. In the current edition, teleportation is part of our general movement rules and is based on several principles, summarized here..." That being said, I'm not aware of any similar "all teleportation works the same way" design principle at play in later editions? Could be wrong though!
You can fall over 500 feet in 1 round. When during the fall would the wizard be able to use an action to cast teleport? There are no reaction spells that will teleport you, so reaction is out. Bonus actions, yes, but again, when would you be able to bonus action during a fall?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
To argue that because conditions like Prone (or its 4e and 3e equivalents) are preserved through a teleport that other miscellaneous non-game concepts like momentum must be as well… I'm not sure about the providence of that line of reasoning.
Crawford says "The principle behind this rule is that effects are not terminated by teleportation unless those effects are bound to the space that a teleporting creature leaves."
Falling seems like a game effect (note though: I'm just providing information... I have no personal preference in this matter, nor stake in how others play).
You can fall over 500 feet in 1 round. When during the fall would the wizard be able to use an action to cast teleport? There are no reaction spells that will teleport you
This is pretty much just for Readied spells or falls over 500 feet.
You can fall over 500 feet in 1 round. When during the fall would the wizard be able to use an action to cast teleport? There are no reaction spells that will teleport you
This is pretty much just for Readied spells or falls over 500 feet.
It would also apply to intentional falling during the caster's turn. Jump off a 300' cliff, cast misty step to interrupt the fall in the last 30' and end up on the ground.
To argue that because conditions like Prone (or its 4e and 3e equivalents) are preserved through a teleport that other miscellaneous non-game concepts like momentum must be as well… I'm not sure about the providence of that line of reasoning.
Crawford says "The principle behind this rule is that effects are not terminated by teleportation unless those effects are bound to the space that a teleporting creature leaves."
Falling seems like a game effect (note though: I'm just providing information... I have no personal preference in this matter, nor stake in how others play).
Since motion is relative, it seems to me that it is, actually, tied to the space being left behind.
Sure, I'm moving relative to the ground where I just was, but now I'm over a different bit of ground...perhaps even a different planet.
If I'm falling towards the ground and teleport to the other side of the planet am I now "falling" up? If I'm flying eastward when teleported around the globe, am I still flying eastward (so, the same direction relative to a map of the planet), or westward (same direction relative to a fixed point in space)? If I'm falling towards the ground at the equator and teleported to the north pole am I now traveling parallel to the ground?
Or, better yet, if I'm standing still at the equator, and therefore moving through space at 1000 miles per hour towards the east (the speed of Earth's rotation, not to mention its own speed through along its revolution and relative to the center of the universe in the event that I'm teleported to another planet or just into open space), but teleported to the opposite side of the Earth, am I now still moving 1000 miles per hour and in the same direction relative to a fixed point in space, thus 2000 miles per hour to the west relative to the ground where I end up?
With a portal, these answers are easily answered: your motion on exiting a portal is the opposite angle of your motion relative to entering the other side. But with effects that simply take you out of the space you're moving through and place you in a new space, it makes the most sense that your motion in the new space starts at zero.
And regarding Steve Winter's "how it would happen in a movie", 2009's Star Trek, among other movies and shows where a falling person was saved by teleportation, says your momentum ceases when teleported.
There is a difference not being discussed between teleporting through a portal, vs teleporting without one. If momentum is conserved, which direction is it conserved in?
The answer is obvious for the portal, your momentum into the portal is your momentum out the portal in the opposite direction. If you were falling and opened a portal below you, and fell into it, you'd 'fall" out the other side at the same speed. But what if that other side was opened facing up? Would you then rocket back up into the air carried by your momentum? Could be fun.
Either way, the general teleportation effects have an issue that portals don't... unknown directional of momentum. Which way does the momentum take you? Can you control it, much like portals would? Is it static, you continue the same direction relative to the planet or something? Random? Game is silent on that.
There is a difference not being discussed between teleporting through a portal, vs teleporting without one. If momentum is conserved, which direction is it conserved in?
The answer is obvious for the portal, your momentum into the portal is your momentum out the portal in the opposite direction. If you were falling and opened a portal below you, and fell into it, you'd 'fall" out the other side at the same speed. But what if that other side was opened facing up? Would you then rocket back up into the air carried by your momentum? Could be fun.
Either way, the general teleportation effects have an issue that portals don't... unknown directional of momentum. Which way does the momentum take you? Can you control it, much like portals would? Is it static, you continue the same direction relative to the planet or something? Random? Game is silent on that.
Yes, I agree, There is a difference not being discussed (by the authors and people who often rule momentum is conserved) between teleporting through a portal, vs teleporting without one.
But I discussed exactly that :)
I meant it like this. Sometimes I am too brief, and strip too much context from my statements in the pursuit of brevity. You post is a good read, and the difference is not often discussed.
So, I've thought a bit about this from a game design standpoint, and it would be interesting for me to get some feedback.
I'm a little surprised by how much discussion there is on this, because it seems like spells that are designed to transport you x ft. can't negate fall damage (for example) x+100 ft. Take Thunder Step as an example. The spell lets you cast it as an action and instantaneously move 90 ft. From a design stand point, it doesn't make sense to me to let this negate a 200 ft. fall. That just doesn't seem like the intent of the spell. Essentially, if you can't just use which ever teleportation spell you have access to to get from the top of your obstacle (cliff, large tree, etc.) to the bottom directly, I don't see why "I fall for a bit and then use the spell that I couldn't use to directly get to the bottom" is even an argument worth considering.
All the arguments about the actual physics of this don't really seem that important. DnD is a game where magic happens, so physics and momentum are sort of our the door to begin with. But just from a simple "this seems like the intent of the game design" standpoint, a spell that can safely transport you 30 ft. (Misty Step) or 90 ft. (Thunder Step) safely shouldn't be used to safely transport you 200 or a 100,000 ft. (this is actually a serious consideration for my game since my PCs are poking around a 10 mile deep abyss) during a fall.
Personally, I'd rule that a spell you could use from the top of your fall would save you mid-flight, because again the intent of the spell seems to be able to safely move you x number of feet. If for drama the PC wants to do that mid-flight, sure why not (this seems like the proper use of Rule of Cool in this instance). So, Teleport would always save you. Dimension Door would probably save you most of the time (I imagine dropping more than 500 ft. is rare). But shorter range teleportation spells, they'll save you the fall damage of their range. There are spells (e.g. Feather Fall) that are specifically designed to negate fall damage.
This from Xanthers: The rule for falling assumes that a creature immediately drops the entire distance when it falls. that means that for any fall of less than 500’ you have no time to cast a spell. Game rules trump physics in this case - your not falling for 6 seconds with time to act, you start and end your fall in the same instant taking 1d6 damage for each 10’ you fell and have no time to cast anything except feather fall which is specifically allowed. Now after castin* featherfall you could teleport I guess.
You are correct, but it is also worth mentioning that XGTE tells you upfront that its expansion on the rules for falling are optional. The only constant rule for falling is from the PHB and says "At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall."
So if you want to do more cinematic falling, the core rules provide for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If something is falling, and they get teleported onto the ground in midair, would they take fall damage?
I stole my pfp from this person: https://mobile.twitter.com/xelart1/status/1177312449575432193
Up to the DM. 5e doesn't really cover momentum as a rule in the game, and only lightly covers falling. (Compared to previous editions) Since there aren't any set rules on momentum, it's not addressed in the teleportation spell descriptions.
I've always used stuff like Misty Step as a way to jump off of cliffs without taking damage. Unless your DM has a good reason to violate Rule of Cool, there's no real way that having teleportation defuse momentum "breaks" anything, so he should probably let you do it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's a DM's call in 5e, but the 3e and 4e writers ruled to conserve momentum (relative to frame of reference of course).
For anyone interested in those historical rulings:
... An important addendum to what's written above is that momentum should be conserved when jumping through a portal relative to the portal. If I step into a magic circle on a flying boat and emerge in a magic circle on the ground, I don't have the boat's momentum; I have my momentum relative to the circle I stepped into.
It's interesting to see that there's been a history of game designers thinking that way... but to the extent that they're not offering their opinion of how one type of teleportation could work, but rather trying to issue some sort of a rule clarification that teleportation in general works that way... I don't like it, smacks of after-the-fact revisionist intentionalism!!!
If all of those inferences about teleportation follow from the premise that a thrown stone, which would normally travel 30 feet, would necessarily travel its full remaining distance if teleported at some point along that trajectory... I call BS. I'm not sure that that's a given even for spells that involve transportation portals, let alone the larger group of all spells involving teleportation of objects or creatures. Certainly I can picture a teleportation portal that perfectly conserves momentum and direction... or I could picture one that violently expels travelers at a speed independent of any that they had when entering... or I could picture sort of a magical meniscus that traveler's must intentionally step through that dampens and reduces all momentum to zero... or I can picture a teleportation portal as being a simultaneous destruction of matter on one end and perfect reassembly at the other... or a stepping through an in-between space which follows different physics than the material plane.... All of these representations are supported in classic fiction
As far as I'm aware, the text of the spells in question in 5e are largely agnostic as to what is "really" going on. Some spells may imply conservation of momentum along a trajectory (see Arcane Gate, where moving from one gate to another exits "as if the two were adjacent to each other"), but others more commonly contain language that implies materialization at a static "point" (see e.g. Gate, Far Step, Dimension Door, Teleport, etc.). Even in 4e this interpretation feels overreaching, since it would conflate teleportation with physical movement, despite the fact that being "immobilized" did not in any way restrict movement by teleportation.
Ultimately we're all in agreement that at the end of the day this comes down to DM interpretation... it just really gets my dander up when designers try to come back after the fact and say "oh yeah, when designing this spell we definitely intended that momentum be conserved" when a) that isn't true, and b) unnecessarily restricts a flexibly-worded spell to only operate in the way that pops into the designers head right at the moment they're being asked.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I respect your preference (and I have no desire to get your dander up), but to be fair: this was across multiple editions/years/writers, was published in the official FAQ, and an article was written about it. Also, it seems in line with other clarifications about teleportation not removing effects: "If a creature is prone when it teleports, is it still prone when it reaches the destination space? The answer is yes. Teleportation does not set a prone creature upright. The principle behind this rule is that effects are not terminated by teleportation..."
There are no "3e and 4e writers" agreeing on this as claimed, only a single source (Steve Winters) who argues in favor of conservation of motion being a D&D truism. Given that Steve himself acknowledges that this is his personal opinion as a player and not a glimpse into the secret world of D&D game design... it's a pretty shaky foundation to build a multi-edition consensus off of.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Actually... on point #2 I'll concede though that in 3.5, if they released a FAQ describing how the spell Teleport worked, they did likely intend that to guide other spells and abilities causing teleportation effects. " In previous editions, the game had no overarching rules for teleportation. Instead, each teleportation spell or ability defined how its version of teleportation worked. In the current edition, teleportation is part of our general movement rules and is based on several principles, summarized here..." That being said, I'm not aware of any similar "all teleportation works the same way" design principle at play in later editions? Could be wrong though!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
How would you go about figuring it all out?
You can fall over 500 feet in 1 round. When during the fall would the wizard be able to use an action to cast teleport? There are no reaction spells that will teleport you, so reaction is out. Bonus actions, yes, but again, when would you be able to bonus action during a fall?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Crawford says "The principle behind this rule is that effects are not terminated by teleportation unless those effects are bound to the space that a teleporting creature leaves."
Falling seems like a game effect (note though: I'm just providing information... I have no personal preference in this matter, nor stake in how others play).
This is pretty much just for Readied spells or falls over 500 feet.
It would also apply to intentional falling during the caster's turn. Jump off a 300' cliff, cast misty step to interrupt the fall in the last 30' and end up on the ground.
Since motion is relative, it seems to me that it is, actually, tied to the space being left behind.
Sure, I'm moving relative to the ground where I just was, but now I'm over a different bit of ground...perhaps even a different planet.
If I'm falling towards the ground and teleport to the other side of the planet am I now "falling" up? If I'm flying eastward when teleported around the globe, am I still flying eastward (so, the same direction relative to a map of the planet), or westward (same direction relative to a fixed point in space)? If I'm falling towards the ground at the equator and teleported to the north pole am I now traveling parallel to the ground?
Or, better yet, if I'm standing still at the equator, and therefore moving through space at 1000 miles per hour towards the east (the speed of Earth's rotation, not to mention its own speed through along its revolution and relative to the center of the universe in the event that I'm teleported to another planet or just into open space), but teleported to the opposite side of the Earth, am I now still moving 1000 miles per hour and in the same direction relative to a fixed point in space, thus 2000 miles per hour to the west relative to the ground where I end up?
With a portal, these answers are easily answered: your motion on exiting a portal is the opposite angle of your motion relative to entering the other side. But with effects that simply take you out of the space you're moving through and place you in a new space, it makes the most sense that your motion in the new space starts at zero.
And regarding Steve Winter's "how it would happen in a movie", 2009's Star Trek, among other movies and shows where a falling person was saved by teleportation, says your momentum ceases when teleported.
There is a difference not being discussed between teleporting through a portal, vs teleporting without one. If momentum is conserved, which direction is it conserved in?
The answer is obvious for the portal, your momentum into the portal is your momentum out the portal in the opposite direction. If you were falling and opened a portal below you, and fell into it, you'd 'fall" out the other side at the same speed. But what if that other side was opened facing up? Would you then rocket back up into the air carried by your momentum? Could be fun.
Either way, the general teleportation effects have an issue that portals don't... unknown directional of momentum. Which way does the momentum take you? Can you control it, much like portals would? Is it static, you continue the same direction relative to the planet or something? Random? Game is silent on that.
I got quotes!
But I discussed exactly that :)
I meant it like this. Sometimes I am too brief, and strip too much context from my statements in the pursuit of brevity. You post is a good read, and the difference is not often discussed.
I got quotes!
So, I've thought a bit about this from a game design standpoint, and it would be interesting for me to get some feedback.
I'm a little surprised by how much discussion there is on this, because it seems like spells that are designed to transport you x ft. can't negate fall damage (for example) x+100 ft. Take Thunder Step as an example. The spell lets you cast it as an action and instantaneously move 90 ft. From a design stand point, it doesn't make sense to me to let this negate a 200 ft. fall. That just doesn't seem like the intent of the spell. Essentially, if you can't just use which ever teleportation spell you have access to to get from the top of your obstacle (cliff, large tree, etc.) to the bottom directly, I don't see why "I fall for a bit and then use the spell that I couldn't use to directly get to the bottom" is even an argument worth considering.
All the arguments about the actual physics of this don't really seem that important. DnD is a game where magic happens, so physics and momentum are sort of our the door to begin with. But just from a simple "this seems like the intent of the game design" standpoint, a spell that can safely transport you 30 ft. (Misty Step) or 90 ft. (Thunder Step) safely shouldn't be used to safely transport you 200 or a 100,000 ft. (this is actually a serious consideration for my game since my PCs are poking around a 10 mile deep abyss) during a fall.
Personally, I'd rule that a spell you could use from the top of your fall would save you mid-flight, because again the intent of the spell seems to be able to safely move you x number of feet. If for drama the PC wants to do that mid-flight, sure why not (this seems like the proper use of Rule of Cool in this instance). So, Teleport would always save you. Dimension Door would probably save you most of the time (I imagine dropping more than 500 ft. is rare). But shorter range teleportation spells, they'll save you the fall damage of their range. There are spells (e.g. Feather Fall) that are specifically designed to negate fall damage.
This from Xanthers:
The rule for falling assumes that a creature immediately drops the entire distance when it falls.
that means that for any fall of less than 500’ you have no time to cast a spell. Game rules trump physics in this case - your not falling for 6 seconds with time to act, you start and end your fall in the same instant taking 1d6 damage for each 10’ you fell and have no time to cast anything except feather fall which is specifically allowed. Now after castin* featherfall you could teleport I guess.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
You are correct, but it is also worth mentioning that XGTE tells you upfront that its expansion on the rules for falling are optional. The only constant rule for falling is from the PHB and says "At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall."
So if you want to do more cinematic falling, the core rules provide for it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"