I actually used the "bubble" analogy to contrast the difference between OAs and AoEs. Teleporting "enters" an AoE, because AoEs are a volume. OAs are triggered based on crossing the limit of an attackers reach, which is a spherical surface but excludes the interior
When creatures teleport within 5 feet of a Polearm Master, did they enter the reach it has with that weapon? Yes. Just like when creatures teleport within a room or planeshift onto another plane, they do enter it.
PAM/OA are not triggered based on crossing space's limits but on entering/leaving reach specifically. The only reason teleport doesn't provoke OA is because it specifically say so. By contrast, leaving the reach of a creature by Plane Shift still provoke OA as it's not specifically noted otherwise.
1) Look at where the attack occurs per the rules: The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. The attack occurs at no other time nor location. popping into existence inside that boundary skips the location where the attack occurs. Reach is not an area of effect and does not work like one.
2) you are right in that teleportation does not trigger OAs, either normal or from PAM (because nothing in PAM changes or contradicts the text for teleporting), the above is why that happens and why it makes sense, it is not the rule itself. But for the record, Plane Shift is a teleportation spell.
I actually used the "bubble" analogy to contrast the difference between OAs and AoEs. Teleporting "enters" an AoE, because AoEs are a volume. OAs are triggered based on crossing the limit of an attackers reach, which is a spherical surface but excludes the interior
When creatures teleport within 5 feet of a Polearm Master, did they enter the reach it has with that weapon? Yes. Just like when creatures teleport within a room or planeshift onto another plane, they do enter it.
PAM/OA are not triggered based on crossing space's limits but on entering/leaving reach specifically. The only reason teleport doesn't provoke OA is because it specifically say so. By contrast, leaving the reach of a creature by Plane Shift still provoke OA as it's not specifically noted otherwise.
1) Look at where the attack occurs per the rules: The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. The attack occurs at no other time nor location. popping into existence inside that boundary skips the location where the attack occurs. Reach is not an area of effect and does not work like one.
2) you are right in that teleportation does not trigger OAs, either normal or from PAM (because nothing in PAM changes or contradicts the text for teleporting), the above is why that happens and why it makes sense, it is not the rule itself. But for the record, Plane Shift is a teleportation spell.
I was just looking for evidence that being banished is the same as being teleported according to RAW. Haven't found it yet. What's your source?
I actually used the "bubble" analogy to contrast the difference between OAs and AoEs. Teleporting "enters" an AoE, because AoEs are a volume. OAs are triggered based on crossing the limit of an attackers reach, which is a spherical surface but excludes the interior
When creatures teleport within 5 feet of a Polearm Master, did they enter the reach it has with that weapon? Yes. Just like when creatures teleport within a room or planeshift onto another plane, they do enter it.
PAM/OA are not triggered based on crossing space's limits but on entering/leaving reach specifically. The only reason teleport doesn't provoke OA is because it specifically say so. By contrast, leaving the reach of a creature by Plane Shift still provoke OA as it's not specifically noted otherwise. (for the caster using the action to do so or say if it was done somehow as a reaction via an magic item or something similar)
Seeing your stance I'm curious as to your response to the below examples and my personal take on your RAW interpretation.
BeyondMisty Below are two different scenarios: 1. A character (C1) uses Misty Step to teleport within 5 feet of a character with the Polearm Master feat (C2). In this scenario C2 sees C1 only when he is within 5 feet. Mechanically C1 entered C2's reach when he was 5 foot from him.
2. C1 uses Invisibility to move within 5 foot of C2, where C1 drops the spell and becomes visible. In this scenario C2 likewise sees C1 only when he is within 5 feet. However, mechanically C1 entered C2's reach when he was 10 foot from him.
The difference between scenario 1 and 2 is purely one of game mechanics, and you'd have a hard time narratively explaining why they shouldn't be ruled the same way in the game. If anything, according to RAW, C2 might have heard or otherwise perceived the invisible C1 moving closer in scenario 2, whereas there would be no such heads-up in scenario 1. That being the case, I would personally find it odd to interpret C1 in scenario 1 (invisible) to be better protected against opportunity attacks than C1 in scenario 2 (teleport).
In scenario 1, no OA can be taken because teleportation doesn’t provoke OAs. In 2, no OA because OAs are against creatures you can see. Seriously, I don’t mean this as a heckle, this threshold/bubble shorthand has you way off in left field chasing non-RAW reasons for things that already have explicit RAW answers.
I actually used the "bubble" analogy to contrast the difference between OAs and AoEs. Teleporting "enters" an AoE, because AoEs are a volume. OAs are triggered based on crossing the limit of an attackers reach, which is a spherical surface but excludes the interior
When creatures teleport within 5 feet of a Polearm Master, did they enter the reach it has with that weapon? Yes. Just like when creatures teleport within a room or planeshift onto another plane, they do enter it.
PAM/OA are not triggered based on crossing space's limits but on entering/leaving reach specifically. The only reason teleport doesn't provoke OA is because it specifically say so. By contrast, leaving the reach of a creature by Plane Shift still provoke OA as it's not specifically noted otherwise.
1) Look at where the attack occurs per the rules: The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. The attack occurs at no other time nor location. popping into existence inside that boundary skips the location where the attack occurs. Reach is not an area of effect and does not work like one.
2) you are right in that teleportation does not trigger OAs, either normal or from PAM (because nothing in PAM changes or contradicts the text for teleporting), the above is why that happens and why it makes sense, it is not the rule itself. But for the record, Plane Shift is a teleportation spell.
I was just looking for evidence that being banished is the same as being teleported according to RAW. Haven't found it yet. What's your source?
Oddly enough, the game designers aren't consistent with using the word "teleport" in their spells that do what would be considered teleporting (in fact, the word isn't consistently used to describe the actual spell teleport except in its name until you start talking about the various destinations and mishaps; it uses "instantly transports" at first, which is similar to the language in Plane Shift "Transports" and can be implied to be instant due to its duration). 5e is not known for being precise with language, so the rule of reasonableness should apply here. Both banishment and plane shift clearly describe mechanics similar to teleporting, and it would not be unreasonable for a DM to rule that they count. Plus the fact that the creature itself is not moving under their own power should also exclude them from OAs here (you don't trigger OAs by falling past another creature, nor by being moved by spells like thorn whip so why would these spells be any different?)
Personally, I'm not a computer, so i'm not going to exclude a spell from a group that clearly does similar things (ie teleporting) just because they didn't use a certain word.
I actually used the "bubble" analogy to contrast the difference between OAs and AoEs. Teleporting "enters" an AoE, because AoEs are a volume. OAs are triggered based on crossing the limit of an attackers reach, which is a spherical surface but excludes the interior
When creatures teleport within 5 feet of a Polearm Master, did they enter the reach it has with that weapon? Yes. Just like when creatures teleport within a room or planeshift onto another plane, they do enter it.
PAM/OA are not triggered based on crossing space's limits but on entering/leaving reach specifically. The only reason teleport doesn't provoke OA is because it specifically say so. By contrast, leaving the reach of a creature by Plane Shift still provoke OA as it's not specifically noted otherwise. (for the caster using the action to do so or say if it was done somehow as a reaction via an magic item or something similar)
Seeing your stance I'm curious as to your response to the below examples and my personal take on your RAW interpretation.
BeyondMisty Below are two different scenarios: 1. A character (C1) uses Misty Step to teleport within 5 feet of a character with the Polearm Master feat (C2). In this scenario C2 sees C1 only when he is within 5 feet. Mechanically C1 entered C2's reach when he was 5 foot from him.
2. C1 uses Invisibility to move within 5 foot of C2, where C1 drops the spell and becomes visible. In this scenario C2 likewise sees C1 only when he is within 5 feet. However, mechanically C1 entered C2's reach when he was 10 foot from him.
The difference between scenario 1 and 2 is purely one of game mechanics, and you'd have a hard time narratively explaining why they shouldn't be ruled the same way in the game. If anything, according to RAW, C2 might have heard or otherwise perceived the invisible C1 moving closer in scenario 2, whereas there would be no such heads-up in scenario 1. That being the case, I would personally find it odd to interpret C1 in scenario 1 (invisible) to be better protected against opportunity attacks than C1 in scenario 2 (teleport).
1) No OA is triggered by teleport
2) No OA is triggered by invisibility or other reasons making you unable to see it.
Plane Shift is not a teleportation spell, it's a spell that transport you. While it can alternatively use a teleportation circle, it doesn't have to.
Read the description of the spell teleport...it says "transports" too...5e is not super exact with language, but the intent should be clear that both are teleporting you, instantly, due to their durations of "instantaneous"
In scenario 1, no OA can be taken because teleportation doesn’t provoke OAs. In 2, no OA because OAs are against creatures you can see. Seriously, I don’t mean this as a heckle, this threshold/bubble shorthand has you way off in left field chasing non-RAW reasons for things that already have explicit RAW answers.
Yeah, I'm kind of sorry for introducing that now...you think you are adding a helpful analogy to help people understand why the RAW works the way it does, but they they start taking it way off into left field, or attacking the analogy instead of the rule itself...oh well
I thought it was understood that moving was leaving a space to enter another, reglardless of movement type.
In general terms, this is correct. It is in the details that we determine whether a particular way of leaving a space to enter another space qualifies as a trigger for a relevant effect.
I actually used the "bubble" analogy to contrast the difference between OAs and AoEs. Teleporting "enters" an AoE, because AoEs are a volume. OAs are triggered based on crossing the limit of an attackers reach, which is a spherical surface but excludes the interior
When creatures teleport within 5 feet of a Polearm Master, did they enter the reach it has with that weapon? Yes. Just like when creatures teleport within a room or planeshift onto another plane, they do enter it.
PAM/OA are not triggered based on crossing space's limits but on entering/leaving reach specifically. The only reason teleport doesn't provoke OA is because it specifically say so. By contrast, leaving the reach of a creature by Plane Shift still provoke OA as it's not specifically noted otherwise.
1) Look at where the attack occurs per the rules: The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. The attack occurs at no other time nor location. popping into existence inside that boundary skips the location where the attack occurs. Reach is not an area of effect and does not work like one.
2) you are right in that teleportation does not trigger OAs, either normal or from PAM (because nothing in PAM changes or contradicts the text for teleporting), the above is why that happens and why it makes sense, it is not the rule itself. But for the record, Plane Shift is a teleportation spell.
I was just looking for evidence that being banished is the same as being teleported according to RAW. Haven't found it yet. What's your source?
Banishment would not provoke OA as it moves a creature without using its movement, action or reaction. I believe a caster using the spell on himself as an action (or as a reaction via a magic item for exemple) would provoke OA though.
The early edition of DnD had very loose and fluid rules. One of the things Gary Gygax wanted with Advanced DnD was to clear up some of the confusion and loose rules. 5e has gone the complete opposite direction. It has become incredibly legalistic. We argue over minutiae in the ruleset and act indignant if somebody has a minor difference of opinion, despite the fact that the wording may be open to two interpretations (or more).
In many ways, 5e has taken on many of the aspects of a religion, with Jeremy Crawford as the prophet or high priest.
5e has gone the complete opposite direction. It has become incredibly legalistic. We argue over minutiae in the ruleset and act indignant if somebody has a minor difference of opinion, despite the fact that the wording may be open to two interpretations (or more).
In many ways, 5e has taken on many of the aspects of a religion, with Jeremy Crawford as the prophet.
The fact that some people on the forum seem to enjoy these little disagreements does not mean 5E is "incredibly legalistic." At it actually plays, at least at the tables I've been at, it's felt much more "loose and fluid" than prior editions. DMs have the freedom to keep things moving and not dive into the rulebook to figure out every little aspect of a situation.
Rules lawyers gonna rules lawyer. That's going to happen regardless of the ruleset they're lawyering.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"Banishment would not provoke OA as it moves a creature without using its movement, action or reaction. I believe a caster using the spell on himself as an action would provoke OA though."
I find it hard to believe that Banishment would provoke an OA, in either case. It takes place instantly, with no chance for an OA. The creature is there, it's suddenly not there.
Btw, what would be the point of casting Banishment on yourself? Once you cast the spell, you are transported to a demiplane but incapacitated. You can't maintain concentration on a spell while incapacitated. So...you banish yourself, blink out and the next second blink back, since ending concentration ended the spell.
Keep in mind where we are. We can inject ambiguity into just about anything if we try hard enough. In other forums, people might shrug and say, "Just do what feels right."
I find it hard to believe that Banishment would provoke an OA, in either case. It takes place instantly, with no chance for an OA. The creature is there, it's suddenly not there.
FWIW you don't need to see the creature moving, only see it when it does move. Instantaneous effects don't prevent creature from reacting to them if trigger is met, it can happen before it resolves. I am more giving an analysis of strict RAW I don't know if it's necessarily RAI though.
I find it hard to believe that Banishment would provoke an OA, in either case. It takes place instantly, with no chance for an OA. The creature is there, it's suddenly not there.
FWIW you don't need to see the creature moving, only see it when it does move. Instantaneous effects don't prevent creature from reacting to them if trigger is met, it can happen before it resolves. I am more giving an analysis of strict RAW I don't know if it's necessarily RAI though.
These are the same thing...and again, you aren't moving through the area where opportunity attacks occur. you don't get to make opportunity attacks anywhere except for where the rules say you do, and they say they occur at the limits of your reach, not anywhere inside.
I find it hard to believe that Banishment would provoke an OA, in either case. It takes place instantly, with no chance for an OA. The creature is there, it's suddenly not there.
FWIW you don't need to see the creature moving, only see it when it does move. Instantaneous effects don't prevent creature from reacting to them if trigger is met, it can happen before it resolves. I am more giving an analysis of strict RAW I don't know if it's necessarily RAI though.
These are the same thing...and again, you aren't moving through the area where opportunity attacks occur. you don't get to make opportunity attacks anywhere except for where the rules say you do, and they say they occur at the limits of your reach, not anywhere inside.
No it's not the same thing. The exact words are;
"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."
Edited: for "exit" rather than "enter" context, I was too caught up in Polearm Master context and it was blurring the point.
Icon, it just does not say that you enter/exit reach only at the outside perimeter of reach! For a creature with 5 foot reach, there are nine possible squares that your reach covers, eight of which are outside squares and one of which in the center 99% of the time can’t hold anyone other than yourself. But there is no rule that if the square that an enemy ( like say a tiny pixie) finally exits your reach from is that center square... that they have not “exited your reach” properly for an OA. They have! They were inside the area drawn by your reach, now they aren’t! In practice, usually the only real conceivable way to exit that center square without also passing through the other eight is by teleportation, so you cannot take an opportunity attack when that pixie teleports out of your center square… not because they have exited the “wrong square”, but rather because there is a specific rule specifically prohibiting Opportunity attacks against teleportation.
You are apologizing for introducing shorthand that is not helpful and then continuing to perpetuate that unhelpful shorthand! There is no rule that only your outside squares provoke opportunity attacks. The rule is that an opportunity attack is provoked when they exit your reach, but not if by teleportation, and that is plenty clear enough already.
I don’t understand what axe you have to grind by trying to introduce a new rule which does not exist anywhere within the players handbook. it is clear that this attempted short hand is getting people off track, apparently including yourself, so just walk it back to what the players handbook says: teleportation doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
1) Look at where the attack occurs per the rules: The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. The attack occurs at no other time nor location. popping into existence inside that boundary skips the location where the attack occurs. Reach is not an area of effect and does not work like one.
2) you are right in that teleportation does not trigger OAs, either normal or from PAM (because nothing in PAM changes or contradicts the text for teleporting), the above is why that happens and why it makes sense, it is not the rule itself. But for the record, Plane Shift is a teleportation spell.
I was just looking for evidence that being banished is the same as being teleported according to RAW. Haven't found it yet. What's your source?
Seeing your stance I'm curious as to your response to the below examples and my personal take on your RAW interpretation.
In scenario 1, no OA can be taken because teleportation doesn’t provoke OAs. In 2, no OA because OAs are against creatures you can see. Seriously, I don’t mean this as a heckle, this threshold/bubble shorthand has you way off in left field chasing non-RAW reasons for things that already have explicit RAW answers.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Plane Shift is not a teleportation spell, it's a spell that transport you. While it can alternatively use a teleportation circle, it doesn't have to.
Oddly enough, the game designers aren't consistent with using the word "teleport" in their spells that do what would be considered teleporting (in fact, the word isn't consistently used to describe the actual spell teleport except in its name until you start talking about the various destinations and mishaps; it uses "instantly transports" at first, which is similar to the language in Plane Shift "Transports" and can be implied to be instant due to its duration). 5e is not known for being precise with language, so the rule of reasonableness should apply here. Both banishment and plane shift clearly describe mechanics similar to teleporting, and it would not be unreasonable for a DM to rule that they count. Plus the fact that the creature itself is not moving under their own power should also exclude them from OAs here (you don't trigger OAs by falling past another creature, nor by being moved by spells like thorn whip so why would these spells be any different?)
Personally, I'm not a computer, so i'm not going to exclude a spell from a group that clearly does similar things (ie teleporting) just because they didn't use a certain word.
1) No OA is triggered by teleport
2) No OA is triggered by invisibility or other reasons making you unable to see it.
Read the description of the spell teleport...it says "transports" too...5e is not super exact with language, but the intent should be clear that both are teleporting you, instantly, due to their durations of "instantaneous"
Yeah, I'm kind of sorry for introducing that now...you think you are adding a helpful analogy to help people understand why the RAW works the way it does, but they they start taking it way off into left field, or attacking the analogy instead of the rule itself...oh well
In general terms, this is correct. It is in the details that we determine whether a particular way of leaving a space to enter another space qualifies as a trigger for a relevant effect.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Banishment would not provoke OA as it moves a creature without using its movement, action or reaction. I believe a caster using the spell on himself as an action (or as a reaction via a magic item for exemple) would provoke OA though.
The early edition of DnD had very loose and fluid rules. One of the things Gary Gygax wanted with Advanced DnD was to clear up some of the confusion and loose rules. 5e has gone the complete opposite direction. It has become incredibly legalistic. We argue over minutiae in the ruleset and act indignant if somebody has a minor difference of opinion, despite the fact that the wording may be open to two interpretations (or more).
In many ways, 5e has taken on many of the aspects of a religion, with Jeremy Crawford as the prophet or high priest.
The fact that some people on the forum seem to enjoy these little disagreements does not mean 5E is "incredibly legalistic." At it actually plays, at least at the tables I've been at, it's felt much more "loose and fluid" than prior editions. DMs have the freedom to keep things moving and not dive into the rulebook to figure out every little aspect of a situation.
Rules lawyers gonna rules lawyer. That's going to happen regardless of the ruleset they're lawyering.
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"Banishment would not provoke OA as it moves a creature without using its movement, action or reaction. I believe a caster using the spell on himself as an action would provoke OA though."
I find it hard to believe that Banishment would provoke an OA, in either case. It takes place instantly, with no chance for an OA. The creature is there, it's suddenly not there.
Btw, what would be the point of casting Banishment on yourself? Once you cast the spell, you are transported to a demiplane but incapacitated. You can't maintain concentration on a spell while incapacitated. So...you banish yourself, blink out and the next second blink back, since ending concentration ended the spell.
There, I have done my daily worship. :)
Keep in mind where we are. We can inject ambiguity into just about anything if we try hard enough. In other forums, people might shrug and say, "Just do what feels right."
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Get out of a grapple? I don't know i was more giving it as a possibility than really thinking of good reasons why ☺
FWIW you don't need to see the creature moving, only see it when it does move. Instantaneous effects don't prevent creature from reacting to them if trigger is met, it can happen before it resolves. I am more giving an analysis of strict RAW I don't know if it's necessarily RAI though.
These are the same thing...and again, you aren't moving through the area where opportunity attacks occur. you don't get to make opportunity attacks anywhere except for where the rules say you do, and they say they occur at the limits of your reach, not anywhere inside.
No it's not the same thing. The exact words are;
"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."
Edited: for "exit" rather than "enter" context, I was too caught up in Polearm Master context and it was blurring the point.
Icon, it just does not say that you enter/exit reach only at the outside perimeter of reach! For a creature with 5 foot reach, there are nine possible squares that your reach covers, eight of which are outside squares and one of which in the center 99% of the time can’t hold anyone other than yourself. But there is no rule that if the square that an enemy ( like say a tiny pixie) finally exits your reach from is that center square... that they have not “exited your reach” properly for an OA. They have! They were inside the area drawn by your reach, now they aren’t! In practice, usually the only real conceivable way to exit that center square without also passing through the other eight is by teleportation, so you cannot take an opportunity attack when that pixie teleports out of your center square… not because they have exited the “wrong square”, but rather because there is a specific rule specifically prohibiting Opportunity attacks against teleportation.
You are apologizing for introducing shorthand that is not helpful and then continuing to perpetuate that unhelpful shorthand! There is no rule that only your outside squares provoke opportunity attacks. The rule is that an opportunity attack is provoked when they exit your reach, but not if by teleportation, and that is plenty clear enough already.
I don’t understand what axe you have to grind by trying to introduce a new rule which does not exist anywhere within the players handbook. it is clear that this attempted short hand is getting people off track, apparently including yourself, so just walk it back to what the players handbook says: teleportation doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.