TLDR: We know conclusively, for a fact, based on the text of the rules themselves:
Teleportation isn't movement, it has no speed, and can't be done with a move.
Entering a space square requires moving into it, specifically by spending movement.
If you can't enter a space square except by using movement, then you can't teleport, fall, or be pushed. Since you can only occupy enter a space square by entering it (or being born there) spending movement to do so.
There is also the fact that your only definition for "entering a square" requires you to be playing on a grid. So if you aren't playing on a grid, according to the assertions of your argument, you can't enter or exit a space square so never trigger OAs or AOEs.
Fixed.
It is helpful to use the correct words when trying to represent arguments. If we're talking about grid rules we're using squares. Yes, they're roughly synonymous with spaces but best to stay precise with our language right? Start swapping out words for other words and it'll just lead to confusion.
Aside from grid rules and entering a square only being possible with movement... I do believe we all settled nicely that teleportation isn't movement. Right?
Like, you can totally Misty Step while under Booming Blade and not have it trigger. Teleportation =/= movement.
This is not fixed and provides no understanding of rules. WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS THREAD?
Well, quickly, we have described why teleportation doesn't cause an opportunity attacks RAW with or without PAM, then spent about 14+ pages trying to explain to one person how they don't understand "entering" as a verb in English.
I'm pondering that 'we all agree Misty Step can't trigger Booming Blade' statement.
I can genuinely see both sides of that one, and I don't think there'd be a clearly wrong DM ruling either way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Aside from grid rules and entering a square only being possible with movement... I do believe we all settled nicely that teleportation isn't movement. Right?
Nope. Teleportation doesn't use your movement, which is a completely different thing. Teleportation is movement that doesn't pass through intervening space.
Aside from grid rules and entering a square only being possible with movement... I do believe we all settled nicely that teleportation isn't movement. Right?
Nope. Teleportation doesn't use your movement, which is a completely different thing. Teleportation is movement that doesn't pass through intervening space.
Might vary depending on DM. It is a much more niche issue though.
At this stage, perhaps agreeing to disagree would be the better answer? Again, teleportation is not a situation covered by 'plain English' and there really are two separate schools of thought on the definition of 'enter' in this context. Neither you nor anyone else is obligated to agree with any other interpretation other than the one you prefer.
...
To be clear, there aren't two "schools of thought" - there's Rav and then there's everyone else. We aren't actually trying to convince Rav anymore, but we feel honor-bound to provide arguments so that any poor new DM or curious player who happens to read this far into the thread can be reassured that teleporting into a space is indeed entering it (but that teleportation will trigger neither a normal OA nor a Polearm OA because of the rules of OAs).
Now you are insisting I am either Rav, which I am not, or that I do not exist. Furthermore, insulting anyone disagreeing with you by calling them a 'poor new DM,' implying that any other interpretation or DM ruling would somehow break the game is likewise rhetoric, not any sort of valid argument.
Accept that different people have different interpretations and move on. That is not the same as saying you are wrong. It isn't 'losing.' It is merely accepting differences of opinion.
And if 'the rules of OA's' remain fully valid even for OA's that do not fully fit them and are merely also called OA's, then the whole debate is purely academic! In that case the definition of 'enter' becomes irrelevant. So... why keep pressing it?
You do exist, but you also haven't actually expressed a clear view one way or the other on the key outstanding questions in this thread.
I'm not at all calling people who disagree with me anything at all. A "poor new DM" is a new DM who finds themselves having to suffer through reading their way through this mess of a thread.
No interpretation will break the game, but all interpretations will have flow on effects. An interpretation that a creature can only "enter" a space if it uses its own movement/action/reaction will have significant effects. It will not have an effect on PAM because those things are already excluded from causing OAs. If you combine it with an interpretation that normal OA rules don't apply to PAM OAs, then yes, an alternate interpretation of "enter" will have impacts.
We are still pressing the definition of "enter" because the conversation has moved on. Everyone here (I believe, including Rav) agrees that Misty Step will not trigger a normal OA nor a PAM OA. Our reasons for agreeing to that statement are based either on an assertion that teleportation never triggers OAs, or that teleportation doesn't count as movement or as entering a space/square/area.
The conversation has moved on to whether teleporting (or falling or being pushed) into an area will trigger the effects of any spell or similar thing that triggers when you "enter an area". Whirlwind is the spell being used for most examples because it triggers only from being entered, its entering or its appearing and not from starting your turn there. The discussion remains important, though, because there are huge amounts of AoE spells that trigger when you enter an area. The interpretation of the word "enter" is thus important to work out whether someone will take damage if they are pushed into a Wall of Fire, or if they teleport into a Spirit Guardians aura. The answer to that question is something that any new DM will need to know. Pushing enemies into hazards is a very common strategic situation.
You do exist, but you also haven't actually expressed a clear view one way or the other on the key outstanding questions in this thread.
I've expressed my view a couple times. The closest to a direct response to my views on this was to be told that my view has already been discussed, without any mention of how the discussion went.
But I have said several times over that I do not believe 'enter' in this specific context to include arrival by teleport. There are situations (including whirlwind) where it would include such forms of entry, but those are contextually different, which I also explained.
As far as I can find, you've only expressed a view regarding teleporting or being pushed into a PAM reach, and that those things would not trigger a PAM OA. That is not an outstanding question on this thread. That discussion ended around 11 pages ago, with all agreeing that no OA would be triggered.
The main outstanding question in this thread is regarding teleportation, falling and pushing into other areas like a Whirlwind, and whether those changes of location into the area would trigger an "enter the area" response. It hinges on the interpretations of the words "enter" and "movement". It seems you agree with the majority, that teleportation and pushing are indeed triggering methods of entry for such effects.
You do exist, but you also haven't actually expressed a clear view one way or the other on the key outstanding questions in this thread.
I've expressed my view a couple times. The closest to a direct response to my views on this was to be told that my view has already been discussed, without any mention of how the discussion went.
But I have said several times over that I do not believe 'enter' in this specific context to include arrival by teleport. There are situations (including whirlwind) where it would include such forms of entry, but those are contextually different, which I also explained.
As far as I can find, you've only expressed a view regarding teleporting or being pushed into a PAM reach, and that those things would not trigger a PAM OA. That is not an outstanding question on this thread. That discussion ended around 11 pages ago, with all agreeing that no OA would be triggered.
The main outstanding question in this thread is regarding teleportation, falling and pushing into other areas like a Whirlwind, and whether those changes of location into the area would trigger an "enter the area" response. It hinges on the interpretations of the words "enter" and "movement". It seems you agree with the majority, that teleportation and pushing are indeed triggering methods of entry for such effects.
But Whirlwind was only brought up in the context of the other questions, as 'proof' of the definition of 'enter.' Now you are insisting that the reason for using it as proof was to prove that the definition applies? That is a tautology, 'Proof that it is, is that it is.'
Pardon, and no offence intended, but are you sure that you are following the discussion clearly?
Please take your off-topic debate to Private Messages. Again, this is not the place for it.
But Whirlwind was only brought up in the context of the other questions, as 'proof' of the definition of 'enter.' Now you are insisting that the reason for using it as proof was to prove that the definition applies? That is a tautology, 'Proof that it is, is that it is.'
Pardon, and no offence intended, but are you sure that you are following the discussion clearly?
Whirlwind was brought up first on page 2, not in an attempt to prove anything, but in an attempt to clarify what was meant by someone claiming that teleporting into an area is not "Entering". It has then been used as an illustrative example by many parties, not often as proof of anything. It was offered as evidence for there being a difference between a creature entering an area vs an area moving to cover a creature - which was a position no one was actually seriously disputing. People often raised the concept of entering an area by having the area move over you, but only as a strawman version of their opponents' position.
The outstanding question remains: what is the definition of "Entering an area", does that definition include teleportation, and does it include falling, pushing or any other form of movement that doesn't use 'your move'/Action/Reaction?
Aside from grid rules and entering a square only being possible with movement... I do believe we all settled nicely that teleportation isn't movement. Right?
Nope. Teleportation doesn't use your movement, which is a completely different thing. Teleportation is movement that doesn't pass through intervening space.
Teleportation isn't movement. Movement is defined and is walking, climbing, swimming, and flying. Any type of movement you have will have a speed. Using your movement on your turn uses up this speed until it is gone, and you can no longer move with that type of movement. Since teleportation doesn't have a speed, and isn't used with your move, it isn't movement.
To be clear, there aren't two "schools of thought" - there's Rav and then there's everyone else.
That's two.
I'm just pointing to text in the rules. That's how I form my opinion about RAW, just ask "What does the book say?"
We aren't actually trying to convince Rav anymore, but we feel honor-bound to provide arguments so that any poor new DM or curious player who happens to read this far into the thread can be reassured that teleporting into a spaceis indeed entering it (but that teleportation will trigger neither a normal OA nor a Polearm OA because of the rules of OAs).
Is it though?
If it were, it'd be easy enough to point to somewhere in the rulebooks that say this.
The only place we get guidance about what "entering" means in game terms is in the text about "Entering A Square". In this text, it says we must have available movement to enter the square.
Thus, in game terms, entering is a function of movement. ie walking, swimming, climbing, or flying. Because to enter a square we must have available movement to do so and muse use that movement. These are terms in the Movement and Position section of the PHB describing how your move portion of turn works.
If you think it means something else, you're concocting that definition. That, is homebrew. You're welcome to do so. This game, D&D, especially 5e, encourages DMs to make whatever rulings they want and that feels right for their story. If you DM and want "Enters" to mean something other than what shows up in the PHB? More power to you.
But, you are correct that teleportation doesn't trigger an OA from Polearm Master feat. Teleporting never triggers OAs, plus you never "enter" their reach, instead, you "appear" within their reach. Why do you appear instead of enter? Because, again, the text in the PHB says that is the effect of teleporting. "You appear where you want".
What about Misty Step being used to take you within the reach of a foe with polearm master? So movement towards a foe with Misty Step, not away.
"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." -PHB p.195
and...
"While wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach." - PHB p.168
This would seem to me, to be a case of the general rule being no opportunity attack for the teleport, but the feat being a specific rule wins out, so there is an opportunity attack entering the reach. Not sure though, figured I would throw it out. PAM seems to be the fairly rare case of the opportunity attack being triggered by movement towards, rather than movement away.
This was the original post that incurred this entire threads divergent tangent into different opinions. As for myself, this is purely my opinion. This is not intended to further the debate, but to give a reasonable answer to the question.
first, one would ask the induvial who would be misty stepping into the foe with the PaM feat if they are disengaging before teleporting.
if no, then foe would get an OA as per OA rule ( Stepper triggered the PROVOKE clause ) provided foe has a reaction to do OA.
if yes stepper disengaged and does not attack, then foe does not get an OA. ( Stepper is not PROVOKING, as per OA second paragraph). Now if after stepping they attack, then foe could OA as stepper has now PROVOKED.
I must say, I've read all post up to now, and found it interesting. D&D rules are like the Mona Lisa's smile, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Except teleport is expressly mentioned as NOT causing opportunity attacks. I think this one is pretty much settled. So no OA, period. I later, in the thread, realized I was wrong in my initial conclusion. Basically, a DM can rule it how they wish, but the RAW would be no OA. Whether the teleport is into or out of the range of somebody, because teleport says it doesn't provoke an OA.
"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."
p.s. I just left it up there, despite the fact I now realize it was wrong, since somebody else may learn by my error if they read the thread.
The outstanding question remains: what is the definition of "Entering an area", does that definition include teleportation, and does it include falling, pushing or any other form of movement that doesn't use 'your move'/Action/Reaction?e
This is a good question. A person can only enter a square by spending movement to do so. So if they teleport there that isn't entering it, because they aren't spending movement to do so, they simply appear in the square. But, the text is silent, entirely, on whether or not forced movement qualifies. The narrower reading of "Entering a Square" that I original held is that to enter you must spend movement... true, but this is only a restriction on your own options for entering, not a restriction on other people forcing you to enter. I am pretty swayed on this point.
Anything that says it moves you would indeed count as entering. Including any of the types of movement speeds or forced movement, push/pull/moves/fall/etc. Since they all fall into the umbrella of "movement", which is what is required to "enter a square". This is, again, not explicit in the rules but is certainly implicit. The SAC on forced movements and AOEs provides supplemental guidance that this is the design intention.
This still leaves the explicit requirement for you to enter a square being to spend movement. And, absent an exception elsewhere, that requirement cannot be avoided. For you to enter yourself into a square you MUST spend movement. Teleportation doesn't say it sidesteps this requirement in any way. but it certainly does put you into the square, since you "appear" there.
We aren't actually trying to convince Rav anymore, but we feel honor-bound to provide arguments so that any poor new DM or curious player who happens to read this far into the thread can be reassured that teleporting into a spaceis indeed entering it (but that teleportation will trigger neither a normal OA nor a Polearm OA because of the rules of OAs).
Is it though?
If it were, it'd be easy enough to point to somewhere in the rulebooks that say this.
...
We've done that. We've done that three times. You've ignored it three times. Magic Circle.
It says: "The creature can’t willingly enter the cylinder by nonmagical means. If the creature tries to use teleportation or interplanar travel to do so, it must first succeed on a Charisma saving throw." It only allows entering by magical means, then lists teleportation as one of two example ways to do so. "Do so" in this context is a call back to "Entering" or to "Entering by magical means". That there is the rules very specifically saying that teleportation is "Entering by magical means".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
All parties, please remember to keep posts:
1. Respectful
2. Constructive
3. On-topic
If one cannot refrain violating the Site Rules & Guidelines, it's probably best to take a breather and come back later.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns
WHAT?
This is not fixed and provides no understanding of rules. WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS THREAD?
I have tried to read this thread and I quickly got lost on who was trying to make what point.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Well, quickly, we have described why teleportation doesn't cause an opportunity attacks RAW with or without PAM, then spent about 14+ pages trying to explain to one person how they don't understand "entering" as a verb in English.
I'm pondering that 'we all agree Misty Step can't trigger Booming Blade' statement.
I can genuinely see both sides of that one, and I don't think there'd be a clearly wrong DM ruling either way.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Nope. Teleportation doesn't use your movement, which is a completely different thing. Teleportation is movement that doesn't pass through intervening space.
Might vary depending on DM. It is a much more niche issue though.
To be clear, there aren't two "schools of thought" - there's Rav and then there's everyone else. We aren't actually trying to convince Rav anymore, but we feel honor-bound to provide arguments so that any poor new DM or curious player who happens to read this far into the thread can be reassured that teleporting into a space is indeed entering it (but that teleportation will trigger neither a normal OA nor a Polearm OA because of the rules of OAs).
You do exist, but you also haven't actually expressed a clear view one way or the other on the key outstanding questions in this thread.
I'm not at all calling people who disagree with me anything at all. A "poor new DM" is a new DM who finds themselves having to suffer through reading their way through this mess of a thread.
No interpretation will break the game, but all interpretations will have flow on effects. An interpretation that a creature can only "enter" a space if it uses its own movement/action/reaction will have significant effects. It will not have an effect on PAM because those things are already excluded from causing OAs. If you combine it with an interpretation that normal OA rules don't apply to PAM OAs, then yes, an alternate interpretation of "enter" will have impacts.
We are still pressing the definition of "enter" because the conversation has moved on. Everyone here (I believe, including Rav) agrees that Misty Step will not trigger a normal OA nor a PAM OA. Our reasons for agreeing to that statement are based either on an assertion that teleportation never triggers OAs, or that teleportation doesn't count as movement or as entering a space/square/area.
The conversation has moved on to whether teleporting (or falling or being pushed) into an area will trigger the effects of any spell or similar thing that triggers when you "enter an area". Whirlwind is the spell being used for most examples because it triggers only from being entered, its entering or its appearing and not from starting your turn there. The discussion remains important, though, because there are huge amounts of AoE spells that trigger when you enter an area. The interpretation of the word "enter" is thus important to work out whether someone will take damage if they are pushed into a Wall of Fire, or if they teleport into a Spirit Guardians aura. The answer to that question is something that any new DM will need to know. Pushing enemies into hazards is a very common strategic situation.
As far as I can find, you've only expressed a view regarding teleporting or being pushed into a PAM reach, and that those things would not trigger a PAM OA. That is not an outstanding question on this thread. That discussion ended around 11 pages ago, with all agreeing that no OA would be triggered.
The main outstanding question in this thread is regarding teleportation, falling and pushing into other areas like a Whirlwind, and whether those changes of location into the area would trigger an "enter the area" response. It hinges on the interpretations of the words "enter" and "movement". It seems you agree with the majority, that teleportation and pushing are indeed triggering methods of entry for such effects.
Please take your off-topic debate to Private Messages. Again, this is not the place for it.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns
Whirlwind was brought up first on page 2, not in an attempt to prove anything, but in an attempt to clarify what was meant by someone claiming that teleporting into an area is not "Entering". It has then been used as an illustrative example by many parties, not often as proof of anything. It was offered as evidence for there being a difference between a creature entering an area vs an area moving to cover a creature - which was a position no one was actually seriously disputing. People often raised the concept of entering an area by having the area move over you, but only as a strawman version of their opponents' position.
The outstanding question remains: what is the definition of "Entering an area", does that definition include teleportation, and does it include falling, pushing or any other form of movement that doesn't use 'your move'/Action/Reaction?
I'm quite sure I'm following just fine, thanks.
Teleportation isn't movement. Movement is defined and is walking, climbing, swimming, and flying. Any type of movement you have will have a speed. Using your movement on your turn uses up this speed until it is gone, and you can no longer move with that type of movement. Since teleportation doesn't have a speed, and isn't used with your move, it isn't movement.
I'm probably laughing.
That's two.
I'm just pointing to text in the rules. That's how I form my opinion about RAW, just ask "What does the book say?"
Is it though?
If it were, it'd be easy enough to point to somewhere in the rulebooks that say this.
The only place we get guidance about what "entering" means in game terms is in the text about "Entering A Square". In this text, it says we must have available movement to enter the square.
Thus, in game terms, entering is a function of movement. ie walking, swimming, climbing, or flying. Because to enter a square we must have available movement to do so and muse use that movement. These are terms in the Movement and Position section of the PHB describing how your move portion of turn works.
If you think it means something else, you're concocting that definition. That, is homebrew. You're welcome to do so. This game, D&D, especially 5e, encourages DMs to make whatever rulings they want and that feels right for their story. If you DM and want "Enters" to mean something other than what shows up in the PHB? More power to you.
But, you are correct that teleportation doesn't trigger an OA from Polearm Master feat. Teleporting never triggers OAs, plus you never "enter" their reach, instead, you "appear" within their reach. Why do you appear instead of enter? Because, again, the text in the PHB says that is the effect of teleporting. "You appear where you want".
I'm probably laughing.
This was the original post that incurred this entire threads divergent tangent into different opinions. As for myself, this is purely my opinion. This is not intended to further the debate, but to give a reasonable answer to the question.
first, one would ask the induvial who would be misty stepping into the foe with the PaM feat if they are disengaging before teleporting.
if no, then foe would get an OA as per OA rule ( Stepper triggered the PROVOKE clause ) provided foe has a reaction to do OA.
if yes stepper disengaged and does not attack, then foe does not get an OA. ( Stepper is not PROVOKING, as per OA second paragraph). Now if after stepping they attack, then foe could OA as stepper has now PROVOKED.
I must say, I've read all post up to now, and found it interesting. D&D rules are like the Mona Lisa's smile, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
[Redacted]
Except teleport is expressly mentioned as NOT causing opportunity attacks. I think this one is pretty much settled. So no OA, period. I later, in the thread, realized I was wrong in my initial conclusion. Basically, a DM can rule it how they wish, but the RAW would be no OA. Whether the teleport is into or out of the range of somebody, because teleport says it doesn't provoke an OA.
"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."
p.s. I just left it up there, despite the fact I now realize it was wrong, since somebody else may learn by my error if they read the thread.
This is a good question. A person can only enter a square by spending movement to do so. So if they teleport there that isn't entering it, because they aren't spending movement to do so, they simply appear in the square. But, the text is silent, entirely, on whether or not forced movement qualifies. The narrower reading of "Entering a Square" that I original held is that to enter you must spend movement... true, but this is only a restriction on your own options for entering, not a restriction on other people forcing you to enter. I am pretty swayed on this point.
Anything that says it moves you would indeed count as entering. Including any of the types of movement speeds or forced movement, push/pull/moves/fall/etc. Since they all fall into the umbrella of "movement", which is what is required to "enter a square". This is, again, not explicit in the rules but is certainly implicit. The SAC on forced movements and AOEs provides supplemental guidance that this is the design intention.
This still leaves the explicit requirement for you to enter a square being to spend movement. And, absent an exception elsewhere, that requirement cannot be avoided. For you to enter yourself into a square you MUST spend movement. Teleportation doesn't say it sidesteps this requirement in any way. but it certainly does put you into the square, since you "appear" there.
Thus, you appear there without having entered it.
I'm probably laughing.
We've done that. We've done that three times. You've ignored it three times. Magic Circle.
It says: "The creature can’t willingly enter the cylinder by nonmagical means. If the creature tries to use teleportation or interplanar travel to do so, it must first succeed on a Charisma saving throw." It only allows entering by magical means, then lists teleportation as one of two example ways to do so. "Do so" in this context is a call back to "Entering" or to "Entering by magical means". That there is the rules very specifically saying that teleportation is "Entering by magical means".