AND scene. "It's swimming (poorly) on land because someone cast a spell on it" is a perfectly sufficient explanation in D&D, I can't imagine the player angrily standing up and demanding that the DM justify what musculature this aquatic fish is using to leverage its newfound land speed.
Hmmm. I think I'm seeing what's happening here. Most of you are here thinking of Longstrider's potential effects on sharks as a game effect only and asking yourselves "Is this OP?" and "Is this RAW?" Since your answer to the first question is "No" and your second answer is "Yes", you stop there and accept that as the result.
I am asking those questions as well, but I have implicitly asked a third question that most people here don't take seriously, which is: "How does this make sense in the theme and logic of magic in the universe of D&D if we also apply some principles of what we know about the real world to the D&D world?" It is because I value psychological verisimiltude and philosophical consistancy that I question "What is needed for an animal with no prior experience of land movement to be be able to walk?", which most people ignore because they don't care much about applying such questions to a fictional universe. IOW, most of you see the nature of the game differently than I do. You center your thoughts exclusively on what this questions mean to the players and to the DMs. I feel that to be too narrow a perspective for my tastes.
While we play the same game, we are playing the game for divergent reasons. We derive enjoyment from the game differently. As we do not think the same sets of questions to be pertinent, we will inevitably arrive at different conclusions about the best way to rule on these disputes.
D&D, and 5E specifically, are not and cannot be simulations of realistic anatomy, physics, or anything really. Real creatures don’t have hit points, move speeds, saving throws, or really anything else resembling any of the various statistics in a creature stat block, and have untold complexities and realities the game makes no attempt to simulate or approximate. “How does learning to walk work in the real world?” isn’t a meaningful question for a 5E spell interaction, and “How does learning to walk work in the D&D world?” is also a meaningless question, because nobody learns to walk in the game, they just do or don’t based on their stats.
I get what you’re saying, but “is this realistic?” isn’t a healthy way to approach a question on a rules and mechanics forum that is completely divorced from the special themes and house rules you play with at your table. It’s a rule question about a game, and “do the rules say this?” and “does this break anything else about game balance?” are usually sufficient questions to end your analysis with (maybe with “is this fun?” and “is this workable for the DM?” added in now and again).
It's past 1:00 AM in my timezone, I've been up for over 20 hours and am operating on less than 4 hours of sleep and espresso, and this is by far the most fascinating conversation I've seen in a hot minute.
It's past 1:00 AM in my timezone, I've been up for over 20 hours and am operating on less than 4 hours of sleep and espresso, and this is by far the most fascinating conversation I've seen in a hot minute.
AND scene. "It's swimming (poorly) on land because someone cast a spell on it" is a perfectly sufficient explanation in D&D, I can't imagine the player angrily standing up and demanding that the DM justify what musculature this aquatic fish is using to leverage its newfound land speed.
Hmmm. I think I'm seeing what's happening here. Most of you are here thinking of Longstrider's potential effects on sharks as a game effect only and asking yourselves "Is this OP?" and "Is this RAW?" Since your answer to the first question is "No" and your second answer is "Yes", you stop there and accept that as the result.
Seeing as this is Rules & Game Mechanics, yes, that's the only thing that matters.
"How does this make sense in the theme and logic of magic in the universe of D&D if we also apply some principles of what we know about the real world to the D&D world?"
That would be a fallacy of irrelevant premises. You can't apply real world principles to something that does not exist in the real world.
It's friggin magic, and that's the bottom line. I can't believe this has to keep being restated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
We are talking about a world where magic can literally awaken a potted fern, animate a teacup, and make them both do the Charleston, how is a shark flopping around 10 feet at a time (20 if it dashes) any more unrealistic?
Well, it's entirely reasonable for a DM to decide "my view of the world does not include sharks walking around on land because someone cast a first level spell on them", but yes, in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum the question is "what does the rule say", not "how would I actually resolve this as a DM".
Well, it's entirely reasonable for a DM to decide "my view of the world does not include sharks walking around on land because someone cast a first level spell on them", but yes, in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum the question is "what does the rule say", not "how would I actually resolve this as a DM".
Where does it say that the shark would “walk” anywhere?!? Using its fins to help it flop along on its belly is a far cry from it walking upright like a cartoon.
Well, it's entirely reasonable for a DM to decide "my view of the world does not include sharks walking around on land because someone cast a first level spell on them", but yes, in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum the question is "what does the rule say", not "how would I actually resolve this as a DM".
Where does it say that the shark would “walk” anywhere?!? Using its fins to help it flop along on its belly is a far cry from it walking upright like a cartoon.
It doesn't have penalties for crawling, ergo it's "walking".
This is a quite interesting discussion. I admit I haven't read all of it. My specific question is how does the text in the MM affect everyone's view?
All creatures have a walking speed, simply called the monster’s speed. Creatures that have no form of ground-based locomotion have a walking speed of 0 feet.
Is this text saying "having a 0 listed is the result of not being able to move on land" or just evidence that 0'+10' still equals 10'? Thoughts?
If your argument is that longstrider doesn't give you the ability to fly then I'm not sure that it is valid to say that it gives you a form of ground-based locomotion.
On the other hand, all creatures have a walking speed.
Mechanically it's not prone, true. But this is magic. The shark is sliding along on an invisible curtain of magic.
Personally, I imagine Longstrider on a humanoid as giving them kind of... "magical skates," for lack of a better description, rather than just enhancing their legs. This is magic, it doesn't have to make anatomical sense, anything can be possible with a little imagination.
This is a quite interesting discussion. I admit I haven't read all of it. My specific question is how does the text in the MM affect everyone's view?
All creatures have a walking speed, simply called the monster’s speed. Creatures that have no form of ground-based locomotion have a walking speed of 0 feet.
Is this text saying "having a 0 listed is the result of not being able to move on land" or just evidence that 0'+10' still equals 10'? Thoughts?
If your argument is that longstrider doesn't give you the ability to fly then I'm not sure that it is valid to say that it gives you a form of ground-based locomotion.
On the other hand, all creatures have a walking speed.
0+10=10. They have a walking speed, as noted, which is not the same as granting a movement type (climb/fly/swim). More particularly, zero is not the same as null--quantification vs qualification.
If the intent was for "walking speed of 0 feet" to be synonymous with "no ground-based locomotion ever" there would be no purpose behind explicitly stating that all creatures have a walking speed. Power does not equate to capability. A creature with a walking speed of 0 is not incapable of ground-based locomotion; they simply lack the power to use ground-based locomotion, and power can be enhanced. It's a matter of quantification.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
If the intent was for "walking speed of 0 feet" to be synonymous with "no ground-based locomotion ever" there would be no purpose ...
But that's the thing: the MM says that having a walking speed of 0' is synonymous with "no form of ground-based locomotion." The argument has been presented that longstrider doesn't actually provide forms of locomotion.
And beyond that, the MM and the PHB imply that "speed" without reference to other forms of locomotion is "walking speed." Does longstrider actually apply to a shark's swim speed?
If the intent was for "walking speed of 0 feet" to be synonymous with "no ground-based locomotion ever" there would be no purpose ...
But that's the thing: the MM says that having a walking speed of 0' is synonymous with "no form of ground-based locomotion." The argument has been presented that longstrider doesn't actually provide forms of locomotion.
And beyond that, the MM and the PHB imply that "speed" without reference to other forms of locomotion is "walking speed." Does longstrider actually apply to a shark's swim speed?
Where does it actually say that?
Every character and monster has a speed, which is the distance in feet that the character or monster can walk in 1 round.
or
All creatures have a walking speed, simply called the monster’s speed.
Neither of those says there is no form of ground-based locomotion, merely that there is no effective form. Not actually the same statement. "All creatures have a walking speed" is, on the other hand, very clear.
Looks like one relevant quote was missed:
All creatures have a walking speed, simply called the monster’s speed. Creatures that have no form of ground-based locomotion have a walking speed of 0 feet.
Of course, that doesn't actually say that all creatures with a walking speed of 0 have no form of ground-based locomotion, but that looks more like the usual "not written by technical writers" problem.
Creatures that are hit by Sentinel or Grappled have their speed set to 0, but they don't "have no form of ground-based locomotion." Longstrider on them doesn't raise their speed to 10, because it remains constantly re-set to 0 by their condition... but I think it's a clear enough indication that you can't use "Speed 0" in a statblock as a synonym for "has no form of ground-based locomotion."
Whatever, the language is imprecise here, I doubt the authors ever thought about what would happen if you cast Longstrider on creature with Speed 0 instead of a blank speed entry, chalk it up to poor editing and playtesting. It's an amusing interaction, and not worth nerfing, even if it wasn't RAI.
Hmmm. I think I'm seeing what's happening here. Most of you are here thinking of Longstrider's potential effects on sharks as a game effect only and asking yourselves "Is this OP?" and "Is this RAW?" Since your answer to the first question is "No" and your second answer is "Yes", you stop there and accept that as the result.
I am asking those questions as well, but I have implicitly asked a third question that most people here don't take seriously, which is: "How does this make sense in the theme and logic of magic in the universe of D&D if we also apply some principles of what we know about the real world to the D&D world?" It is because I value psychological verisimiltude and philosophical consistancy that I question "What is needed for an animal with no prior experience of land movement to be be able to walk?", which most people ignore because they don't care much about applying such questions to a fictional universe. IOW, most of you see the nature of the game differently than I do. You center your thoughts exclusively on what this questions mean to the players and to the DMs. I feel that to be too narrow a perspective for my tastes.
While we play the same game, we are playing the game for divergent reasons. We derive enjoyment from the game differently. As we do not think the same sets of questions to be pertinent, we will inevitably arrive at different conclusions about the best way to rule on these disputes.
Have a good day.
D&D, and 5E specifically, are not and cannot be simulations of realistic anatomy, physics, or anything really. Real creatures don’t have hit points, move speeds, saving throws, or really anything else resembling any of the various statistics in a creature stat block, and have untold complexities and realities the game makes no attempt to simulate or approximate. “How does learning to walk work in the real world?” isn’t a meaningful question for a 5E spell interaction, and “How does learning to walk work in the D&D world?” is also a meaningless question, because nobody learns to walk in the game, they just do or don’t based on their stats.
I get what you’re saying, but “is this realistic?” isn’t a healthy way to approach a question on a rules and mechanics forum that is completely divorced from the special themes and house rules you play with at your table. It’s a rule question about a game, and “do the rules say this?” and “does this break anything else about game balance?” are usually sufficient questions to end your analysis with (maybe with “is this fun?” and “is this workable for the DM?” added in now and again).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's past 1:00 AM in my timezone, I've been up for over 20 hours and am operating on less than 4 hours of sleep and espresso, and this is by far the most fascinating conversation I've seen in a hot minute.
It really is, isn't it?
😂😂
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Seeing as this is Rules & Game Mechanics, yes, that's the only thing that matters.
That would be a fallacy of irrelevant premises. You can't apply real world principles to something that does not exist in the real world.
It's friggin magic, and that's the bottom line. I can't believe this has to keep being restated.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
We are talking about a world where magic can literally awaken a potted fern, animate a teacup, and make them both do the Charleston, how is a shark flopping around 10 feet at a time (20 if it dashes) any more unrealistic?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, it's entirely reasonable for a DM to decide "my view of the world does not include sharks walking around on land because someone cast a first level spell on them", but yes, in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum the question is "what does the rule say", not "how would I actually resolve this as a DM".
Where does it say that the shark would “walk” anywhere?!? Using its fins to help it flop along on its belly is a far cry from it walking upright like a cartoon.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It doesn't have penalties for crawling, ergo it's "walking".
This is a quite interesting discussion. I admit I haven't read all of it. My specific question is how does the text in the MM affect everyone's view?
Is this text saying "having a 0 listed is the result of not being able to move on land" or just evidence that 0'+10' still equals 10'? Thoughts?
If your argument is that longstrider doesn't give you the ability to fly then I'm not sure that it is valid to say that it gives you a form of ground-based locomotion.
On the other hand, all creatures have a walking speed.
Mechanically it's not prone, true. But this is magic. The shark is sliding along on an invisible curtain of magic.
Personally, I imagine Longstrider on a humanoid as giving them kind of... "magical skates," for lack of a better description, rather than just enhancing their legs. This is magic, it doesn't have to make anatomical sense, anything can be possible with a little imagination.
0+10=10. They have a walking speed, as noted, which is not the same as granting a movement type (climb/fly/swim). More particularly, zero is not the same as null--quantification vs qualification.
If the intent was for "walking speed of 0 feet" to be synonymous with "no ground-based locomotion ever" there would be no purpose behind explicitly stating that all creatures have a walking speed. Power does not equate to capability. A creature with a walking speed of 0 is not incapable of ground-based locomotion; they simply lack the power to use ground-based locomotion, and power can be enhanced. It's a matter of quantification.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The shark is using a movement mode of walking. Exactly what this looks like is undefined.
But that's the thing: the MM says that having a walking speed of 0' is synonymous with "no form of ground-based locomotion." The argument has been presented that longstrider doesn't actually provide forms of locomotion.
And beyond that, the MM and the PHB imply that "speed" without reference to other forms of locomotion is "walking speed." Does longstrider actually apply to a shark's swim speed?
or
Oh. Were you looking for the next sentence in the MM? “Creatures that have no form of ground-based locomotion have a walking speed of 0 feet.”
Looks like one relevant quote was missed:
Of course, that doesn't actually say that all creatures with a walking speed of 0 have no form of ground-based locomotion, but that looks more like the usual "not written by technical writers" problem.
Creatures that are hit by Sentinel or Grappled have their speed set to 0, but they don't "have no form of ground-based locomotion." Longstrider on them doesn't raise their speed to 10, because it remains constantly re-set to 0 by their condition... but I think it's a clear enough indication that you can't use "Speed 0" in a statblock as a synonym for "has no form of ground-based locomotion."
Whatever, the language is imprecise here, I doubt the authors ever thought about what would happen if you cast Longstrider on creature with Speed 0 instead of a blank speed entry, chalk it up to poor editing and playtesting. It's an amusing interaction, and not worth nerfing, even if it wasn't RAI.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This whole thing could have been prevented if they had put “—“ instead of “0” like Games Workshop does.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting