Your jump is limited by how far you can move; each foot jumped uses a foot of movement (PH, 182) - Jeremy Crawford
That's about as official as you're going to get. :)
The distance you jump is movement. But once you're up in the air, you start falling. And falling isn't movement.
Ask yourself two questions:
Did I jump?
Did I move some number of feet from my current position?
If the answer to both is "yes", then you have some number of "feet jumped", and thus consume movement. It's pretty clear. Maybe you want to rule that an 8-foot high jump consumes 8 feet of movement on the way up, and 8 feet on the way down, for a total of 16 feet of movement. But a more charitable reading is that it consumes only 8 feet of movement.
But you jumped X feet, and X feet jumped explicitly consumes X amount movement as directly stated by Mr. Crawford, so you're not falling. Nowhere in his ruling does it state that it only applies to some jumps, but not all, or only horizontal jumps, or excludes high jumps.
FWIW the rules on Falling:
Falling
A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer. 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.
The rule implies that a "fall" is a distance of at least 10 feet, and ends with a minimum of 1d6 damage. So, anything less than 10 feet isn't a "fall". Falling assumes that you're going down enough distance to matter.
"Descending" isn't climbing, jumping, or swimming. Also, there are no rules which define the limits of a "Descend". It is by it's very nature moving downward through air, with no ability to cease the downward movement. You can't stop the "Descending", and stay put. You can't reverse the "Descending" and go back up. Failing to complete the "Descending" is unavoidable, and by exclusive definition, it is falling.
Dramatically incorrect. "Descending" just means going down. That's it. There's no subtext, you are making stuff up.
For everyone else, they continue "Descending" until they reach a solid surface. However, the Glide ability allows something new - the ability to move horizontal in addition to downward motion. Note that nothing in the rule grants the ability to slow, cease, or reverse the downward motion. It only adds the ability to move horizontally while going down. You continue to fall at the same rate as everyone else. There are no rules which state otherwise.
You only "continue to fall at the same rate as everyone else" if you're falling, which you're not if you're gliding, because that's how words work.
The second part of Glide is significant, because it resolves an issue created with the first part: when the glide ends, you will have probably fallen quite a bit, and are now subject to 1d6 damage for every 10 feet fallen! An ability that sticks you with up to 20d6 damage for some horizontal movement isn't great, so something must be done about that. Therefore, you gain the ability to negate that falling damage by spending a Reaction. Now, as long as you have a Reaction handy, you can fall as much as you like - moving horizontally while doing so - and land without injury. The Glide ability is complete.
The second part of the feature doesn't interact with the first part at all. If you make use of the first part, you're not falling.
If Gliding wasn't falling, there would be no need for the second part of the rule. Glide would just state that this movement doesn't impose falling damage, or that it isn't falling, and it would state that it consumes some or all of your character's movement score. But since we are given a choice to negate the damage or not, the Glide must impose falling damage. If the unavoidable downward movement causes falling damage, you must be falling.
Gliding isn't falling. Again, that's how words work. It doesn't need to state that the movement doesn't impose falling damage, because it isn't falling. It doesn't need to state that it isn't falling because these words are in extremely common usage in English and they don't really need definitions. "The existence of an effect that lets you negate falling damage means that a separate effect that doesn't involve falling must impose falling damage" is a massive non sequitur.
Given the above, if you spend your Reaction somehow prior to (or during) your Glide, or decide not to spend your Reaction yet, you will now take falling damage. Because you've been falling for however many feet. Since falling doesn't consume a character's movement, none of the downward movement is a "cost", so it doesn't make sense to include a rule to specify an exception to a rule that doesn't exist. Therefore, the only cost that can be negated is the horizontal movement cost.
There is absolutely nothing that limits the horizontal movement to otherwise-uncontrolled downward movement. If the hadozee had a flying speed and used it to fly downward, they would unambiguously get their 150 feet of horizontal movement. That said, I agree that it's only the horizontal movement that doesn't cost movement, but only because that's almost required by the grammatical structure of the sentence.
Basically, the rule is (rather poorly) attempting to mirror the action of a creature executing a controlled fall, rather than an uncontrolled fall. While falling, the creature is able to maneuver - but cannot stop the fall. However, as they are adept at making controlled falls, they can land safely, with a small bit of effort (in the form of a Reaction).
Think of it this way: If you use your definition, then you'd be spending the character's movement for the downward distance. But what if the distance moved is less than the distance to the ground? If I jump off a 500 foot cliff, am I able to only spend 30 feet of movement each turn, resulting it a 17-turn descent? What if I don't want to spend any of my movement? Do I hover in place? Am I compelled to spend some or all of my movement? If so, how much? Must I dash? If I am forced to spend some amount of movement, shouldn't the rule explain that, along with how much I must spend each round? What happens when I reach the ground, 17 turns later? Do I take 20d6 damage because I came down 500 feet? Is the DM expected to spend round after round recording "falling" distance? If so, why not include that in the rule? Or do I take no damage at all, because I haven't been falling?
The fact that all these questions require answers is why the feature is poorly written. They require table rulings.
If I've not been falling though, why does Glide include a Reaction to avoid damage that I can't possibly take while Gliding?
Because you can take that damage while falling. How is this a question?
What if I jump off a 7 foot cliff? You're saying I spend 7 feet of movement, leaving me 23 feet of movement left.
If that's how a DM rules, sure. It's undefined.
But, all movement spends in the game are in 5-foot increments.
No they're not? The rules never require the common 5-foot grid. Difficult terrain and similar effects generally operate with 1 foot being the minimum relevant movement distance.
What can I do with the remaining 3 feet of movement? You can see where this interpretation quickly breaks all sorts of things, and introduces contradictions all over the place.
It doesn't break anything?
Ergo: 1) Gliding is falling.
Entirely unproven by anything you've asserted, and contradicted by the way the words are actually used in English.
2) Falling does not consume movement.
Agreed, but not relevant.
3) Falling does damage, but the player can choose to negate it.
As long as they have a reaction available, agreed.
4) Horizontal movement does consume movement, however, that is negated.
The horizontal movement offered by the feature never had a cost to negate, but I think this is a semantic thing that isn't really relevant to anything so sure, whatever.
I believe that is the most exhausting explanation of a rule I've ever had to make. :D I hope it helps.
You didn't explain the rule. You redefined a word and used your novel definition to invent a new rule and then begged the question throughout your entire "argument" in favor of it.
Your jump is limited by how far you can move; each foot jumped uses a foot of movement (PH, 182) - Jeremy Crawford
That's about as official as you're going to get. :)
snip
FWIW the rules on Falling:
Falling
A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer. 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.
The rule implies that a "fall" is a distance of at least 10 feet, and ends with a minimum of 1d6 damage. So, anything less than 10 feet isn't a "fall". Falling assumes that you're going down enough distance to matter.
Absolutely not. That's not what it implies whatsoever. You take damage per 10ft, but you can fall less than 10ft, because otherwise... what the hell happens when you step off a 5ft ledge? Do you just hover there in the air? Of course not. You fall.
And to your earlier quote from Jeremy Crawford -- he's obviously talking about long jumps there.
Well I'm glad your 4 years on these forums qualifies you to definitively answer the questions that have been keeping this thread alive for 6 pages now. It would sure be strange if anyone who disagreed with you had an older account than that.
Okay, what's your take on this, then? Does Manta Glide require movement?
If you must know: Manta Glide doesn't eat your movement. You can use it when it isn't your turn, and you can't use your movement when it isn't your turn. That's enough, as far as I'm concerned.
Did the Hadozee Glide in the UA require movement, or did WotC just add the "this ability doesn't require movement" to clarify an ability that had been confusing people in the playtest?
UA Hadozee Glide did not eat your movement. HOWEVER, it seems more likely that it was SUPPOSED to. Here's why: 1 - They rearranged the wording from "you get these benefits by extending your whatever," to "you can extend your whatever, and when you do, you get these benefits." This is a change, which means it might be a sloppy phrasing, and if it is, then maybe it's meant to mean, "on your turn, you can extend your whatever, and when you do, you get these benefits." And if that were true, then the point I made earlier would not apply. 2 - They separated the clauses. Before, you could nullify some damage and when you did, you could move. Again, this allowed you to move when it's not your turn. Now, you can move, and also you can nullify some damage. Since they don't both have to happen at once, you could argue that you can only nullify the damage when it's not your turn -- you can't move.
Or, did you just want to tout that your account is older than mine (while ignoring that I have nearly 6 times the amount of posts that you do, and began posting in rules discussions muchearlier than you did)?
Actually, I wasn't even thinking about my own account when I said that. I often forget how old it is. No, I was banking on the theory that there was probably at least one user in the previous 6 pages of comments who had an older account than you. Let's see if I was right! - Calavid, the OP, has 4 years - quindraco, post #2, has 4 years - Farling, post #5, has 4 years - Ophidimancer, post #6, has 5 years Shall I continue? It's kind of tedious to do, so I'm not going to. Sorry I asked. Point is, I was trying to take you down a peg, because your tone was really condescending. Should I have done? Probably not. There's really no point being heated in these things. But I figured someone needed to provide a counterpoint for poor innocent rushl, who hasn't walked these ancient halls long enough to understand the culture, and who might have gotten the impression that we endorse gatekeeping here. Shit, I'm doing it again.
Your jump is limited by how far you can move; each foot jumped uses a foot of movement (PH, 182) - Jeremy Crawford
That's about as official as you're going to get. :)
snip
FWIW the rules on Falling:
Falling
A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer. 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.
The rule implies that a "fall" is a distance of at least 10 feet, and ends with a minimum of 1d6 damage. So, anything less than 10 feet isn't a "fall". Falling assumes that you're going down enough distance to matter.
Absolutely not. That's not what it implies whatsoever. You take damage per 10ft, but you can fall less than 10ft, because otherwise... what the hell happens when you step off a 5ft ledge? Do you just hover there in the air? Of course not. You fall.
And to your earlier quote from Jeremy Crawford -- he's obviously talking about long jumps there.
Even if we assume that High Jumps don't consume movement, it's still not falling since it doesn't clear a 10 foot distance. We can all agree that if you step off a 6-inch curb, you're not "falling". But what about 1 foot? 2? 4?
You have to draw a line mechanically somewhere that separates "falling" from "not falling". I postulate that the game rules do this in the Falling rules. It defines a "Fall" as a distance that is a "great height" of at least "10 feet". If you want to rule at your table that a "Fall" begins at 6 feet, 3 and a quarter inches - but you don't take damage from "falls" less than 10 feet but greater than 6 feet, 3 and a quarter inches, that's up to you.
Well I'm glad your 4 years on these forums qualifies you to definitively answer the questions that have been keeping this thread alive for 6 pages now. It would sure be strange if anyone who disagreed with you had an older account than that.
Okay, what's your take on this, then? Does Manta Glide require movement?
If you must know: Manta Glide doesn't eat your movement. You can use it when it isn't your turn, and you can't use your movement when it isn't your turn. That's enough, as far as I'm concerned.
Fully agreed. That is the correct reading of the rule. That was my disagreement with @rushl.
Did the Hadozee Glide in the UA require movement, or did WotC just add the "this ability doesn't require movement" to clarify an ability that had been confusing people in the playtest?
UA Hadozee Glide did not eat your movement. HOWEVER, it seems more likely that it was SUPPOSED to. Here's why: 1 - They rearranged the wording from "you get these benefits by extending your whatever," to "you can extend your whatever, and when you do, you get these benefits." This is a change, which means it might be a sloppy phrasing, and if it is, then maybe it's meant to mean, "on your turn, you can extend your whatever, and when you do, you get these benefits." And if that were true, then the point I made earlier would not apply. 2 - They separated the clauses. Before, you could nullify some damage and when you did, you could move. Again, this allowed you to move when it's not your turn. Now, you can move, and also you can nullify some damage. Since they don't both have to happen at once, you could argue that you can only nullify the damage when it's not your turn -- you can't move.
I don't think it was supposed to consume movement because it was written similarly to Manta Glide, and it wouldn't make sense if it did (for reasons explained earlier in this thread that you seem to understand). And I think they separated the abilities in order to make the formatting better (like they're doing for the playtest document for "5.5e").
Or, did you just want to tout that your account is older than mine (while ignoring that I have nearly 6 times the amount of posts that you do, and began posting in rules discussions muchearlier than you did)?
Actually, I wasn't even thinking about my own account when I said that. I often forget how old it is. No, I was banking on the theory that there was probably at least one user in the previous 6 pages of comments who had an older account than you. Let's see if I was right! - Calavid, the OP, has 4 years - quindraco, post #2, has 4 years - Farling, post #5, has 4 years - Ophidimancer, post #6, has 5 years Shall I continue? It's kind of tedious to do, so I'm not going to. Sorry I asked. Point is, I was trying to take you down a peg, because your tone was really condescending. Should I have done? Probably not. There's really no point being heated in these things. But I figured someone needed to provide a counterpoint for poor innocent rushl, who hasn't walked these ancient halls long enough to understand the culture, and who might have gotten the impression that we endorse gatekeeping here. Shit, I'm doing it again.
Yeah, sorry for being condescending. I didn't mean to (and have been quite pissed off by all the 5.5e doomers on the forum recently, but I shouldn't have brought that into this thread). I was trying to point out that I've played with this rule for years and double checked several times (I'm pretty sure I've also discussed Manta Glide on this forum around when it came out). But I shouldn't have done that, you have my apologies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The second part of the feature doesn't interact with the first part at all. If you make use of the first part, you're not falling.
I find it highly improbable that two different, unrelated abilities have been sandwiched together under a single name. I'd challenge you to find an example of another ability with two totally unrelated functions. If the second part of Glide didn't apply to the first part, then it would be a second ability. Probably with a name like "Deft Landing".
Besides, if Gliding wasn't falling, don't you think they'd specify your decent rate? In any instance that varies from the standard falling rules (Feather Fall, for example), a decent rate is specified which overrides the normal rules. Glide doesn't exclude the downward motion from "falling", or limit how far down you can go in a single round. Since no limit is given, you go all the way down until something stops you (or you use the 500 foot limit from Xanathar's). Even if you assume that second part of the rule doesn't apply to the first, then Glide still has no provisions excluding you from taking damage by descending from a great height. Therefore, if you go more than 10 feet, you take 1d6 damage per 10 feet. That's falling.
Even Manta Glide had provisions for handling the fall damage accrued at the end of the Glide.
The second part of the feature doesn't interact with the first part at all. If you make use of the first part, you're not falling.
I find it highly improbable that two different, unrelated abilities have been sandwiched together under a single name. I'd challenge you to find an example of another ability with two totally unrelated functions.
If the second part of Glide didn't apply to the first part, then it would be a second ability. Probably with a name like "Deft Landing".
The two effects are very tightly linked narratively; the same physiological traits are responsible for both mechanical benefits. There's no reason to separate them into separate features.
A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer. 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.
The rule implies that a "fall" is a distance of at least 10 feet, and ends with a minimum of 1d6 damage. So, anything less than 10 feet isn't a "fall". Falling assumes that you're going down enough distance to matter.
Absolutely not. That's not what it implies whatsoever. You take damage per 10ft, but you can fall less than 10ft, because otherwise... what the hell happens when you step off a 5ft ledge? Do you just hover there in the air? Of course not. You fall.
it's still not falling since it doesn't clear a 10 foot distance. We can all agree that if you step off a 6-inch curb, you're not "falling". But what about 1 foot? 2? 4?
You don't fall if you step off a 6 inch curb properly, sure. But if you do it by accident? Maybe you didn't realize there was a curb? You could certainly fall.
You have to draw a line mechanically somewhere that separates "falling" from "not falling". I postulate that the game rules do this in the Falling rules. It defines a "Fall" as a distance that is a "great height" of at least "10 feet".
Look again. It defines a fall "from a great height" as being one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer, and then it explains that falls from 10ft or more cause damage. One can assume, then, that a fall from a less-than-great height is not one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer, and would likely include falls from 9ft or less. Yes?
The second part of the feature doesn't interact with the first part at all. If you make use of the first part, you're not falling.
I find it highly improbable that two different, unrelated abilities have been sandwiched together under a single name. I'd challenge you to find an example of another ability with two totally unrelated functions.
Or, to pick a specifically racial feature, warforged's Constructed Resilience
Constructed Resilience
You were created to have remarkable fortitude, represented by the following benefits:
You have advantage on saving throws against being poisoned, and you have resistance to poison damage.
You don’t need to eat, drink, or breathe.
You are immune to disease.
You don’t need to sleep, and magic can’t put you to sleep.
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)
Water under the bridge I guess. By the by, how do I join your club? Just add it to my signature? lol
The Forum Loudmouth Club? That's IamSposta, Yurei, and I. We're a bit hotheaded and like to debate people and have gotten reported by people not in the group for being hotheaded in debates amongst ourselves. The purpose of it is to tell people not to report us if they see us arguing with each other. I could see if you could join, but it's not really a club. More of a "hey, we're friends and will report each other if we actually get offended by what they're saying, don't report other members of the club for us".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I agree it's not built well. I agree it's overpowered in most scenarios.
Yes, under certain circumstances it lets you move fast. How is that overpowered in most scenarios?
The most likely abusable scenario is a glide-by shooting. There's many ways to get enough height to glide out, full-attack or drop a big spell, then glide back to safety. It basically increases the range of any spell to a quarter-mile if you want to return to your starting place - all in a single round. Two things to note though: 1) "glide-by shooting" is funny, and 2) it's not super abusable in a game-mechanic sense. But it is silly to imagine a monkey-dude rocketing around at 293 miles per hour (which is your speed when gliding from the maximum of 500 feet). The rule isn't strictly game-breaking, but it is immersion-breaking.
Where are you finding your convenient 500 foot cliff in a dungeon? or a City? In the wilderness sure, but how are you getting to the top of that cliff in the middle of a fight?
Even if it happened, it would be tactically unfeasible. You CANNOT get back to your start point and unless you're using a bow or crossbow, you don't have to range to reach a target 250 feet away (not sure about spells but I'm fairly certain not many can reach 250 feet.)
And if you want to play semantics, you can't shoot and scoot while gliding because you've been saying gliding isn't movement. You can only split movement during your turn.
Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
Unless the movement you are taking is specifically excluded from consuming your speed, it consumes your speed. It's very much explicitly spelled out. As for Teleport, look at the spell. The word "move" isn't in there, because "move" (when used to define a distance your character goes from one position to another during your turn) is a game-defined mechanic.
It's not a "move". The entire purpose of the "no movement cost" rider on the Hadozee Glide is because movement always consumes your speed. If it didn't, there would be no need to specify that a movement does NOT consume your speed.
Move that rely or not on your Speed reminds me of the Harengon's Rabbit Hop feature discussion we had about. It was clarified in a Sage Advice that jumping with it was not consuming movement. I have no doubt the Hardozee or Manta Glide would get a similar ruling from WoTC.
When a harengon uses Rabbit Hop, does the trait’s jump expend movement? The Rabbit Hop trait lets a harengon jump as a bonus action, and that jump doesn’t consume any of the harengon’s normal movement. That fact is why the trait has a limited number of uses between long rests. If you compare the wording of Rabbit Hop to the wording of the long and high jump rules in the Player’s Handbook, you’ll see that those rules explicitly expend movement, whereas Rabbit Hop doesn’t.
Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
Unless the movement you are taking is specifically excluded from consuming your speed, it consumes your speed. It's very much explicitly spelled out. As for Teleport, look at the spell. The word "move" isn't in there, because "move" (when used to define a distance your character goes from one position to another during your turn) is a game-defined mechanic.
It's not a "move". The entire purpose of the "no movement cost" rider on the Hadozee Glide is because movement always consumes your speed. If it didn't, there would be no need to specify that a movement does NOT consume your speed.
Move that rely or not on your Speed reminds me of the Harengon's Rabbit Hop feature discussion we had about. It was clarified in a Sage Advice that jumping with it was not consuming movement. I have no doubt the Hardozee or Manta Glide would get a similar ruling from WoTC.
When a harengon uses Rabbit Hop, does the trait’s jump expend movement? The Rabbit Hop trait lets a harengon jump as a bonus action, and that jump doesn’t consume any of the harengon’s normal movement. That fact is why the trait has a limited number of uses between long rests. If you compare the wording of Rabbit Hop to the wording of the long and high jump rules in the Player’s Handbook, you’ll see that those rules explicitly expend movement, whereas Rabbit Hop doesn’t.
The difference there is Rabbit Hop is a limited resource and a bonus action, so it does cost something to use -- that something just isn't part of your turn's movement allotment
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)
The point is just to illustrate that movement doesn't always consume your speed., even when using a feature that let you jump X feet or move up to your speed.
I like how SA has suggested that you can figure out whether it consumes movement by looking at whether it can be used infinitely, or only a number of times per long rest. But that metric, the glide feature uses movement. But so would the Aggressive trait for orcs, and that's simply not true.
I find it highly improbable that two different, unrelated abilities have been sandwiched together under a single name. I'd challenge you to find an example of another ability with two totally unrelated functions.
Aren't both abilities related to Healing? Besides it's a feat, not an ability.
Or, to pick a specifically racial feature, warforged's Constructed Resilience
Constructed Resilience
You were created to have remarkable fortitude, represented by the following benefits:
You have advantage on saving throws against being poisoned, and you have resistance to poison damage.
You don’t need to eat, drink, or breathe.
You are immune to disease.
You don’t need to sleep, and magic can’t put you to sleep.
All of which are related to the Warforged's "remarkable fortitude". Or their "Constructed Resilience". Basically, it's tough, and here are the game rules repesenting that.
Just like all of the Glide abilities relate to a Glide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I mean, no?
Answer the questions I asked at the end of the post. If Glide isn't falling:
Also, if Glide isn't falling, why don't I have a Glide speed? See post #84 for that explanation.
It's not "falling". It's "movement".
That's about as official as you're going to get. :)
The distance you jump is movement. But once you're up in the air, you start falling. And falling isn't movement.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Ask yourself two questions:
If the answer to both is "yes", then you have some number of "feet jumped", and thus consume movement. It's pretty clear. Maybe you want to rule that an 8-foot high jump consumes 8 feet of movement on the way up, and 8 feet on the way down, for a total of 16 feet of movement. But a more charitable reading is that it consumes only 8 feet of movement.
But you jumped X feet, and X feet jumped explicitly consumes X amount movement as directly stated by Mr. Crawford, so you're not falling. Nowhere in his ruling does it state that it only applies to some jumps, but not all, or only horizontal jumps, or excludes high jumps.
FWIW the rules on Falling:
The rule implies that a "fall" is a distance of at least 10 feet, and ends with a minimum of 1d6 damage. So, anything less than 10 feet isn't a "fall". Falling assumes that you're going down enough distance to matter.
Dramatically incorrect. "Descending" just means going down. That's it. There's no subtext, you are making stuff up.
You only "continue to fall at the same rate as everyone else" if you're falling, which you're not if you're gliding, because that's how words work.
The second part of the feature doesn't interact with the first part at all. If you make use of the first part, you're not falling.
Gliding isn't falling. Again, that's how words work. It doesn't need to state that the movement doesn't impose falling damage, because it isn't falling. It doesn't need to state that it isn't falling because these words are in extremely common usage in English and they don't really need definitions. "The existence of an effect that lets you negate falling damage means that a separate effect that doesn't involve falling must impose falling damage" is a massive non sequitur.
There is absolutely nothing that limits the horizontal movement to otherwise-uncontrolled downward movement. If the hadozee had a flying speed and used it to fly downward, they would unambiguously get their 150 feet of horizontal movement. That said, I agree that it's only the horizontal movement that doesn't cost movement, but only because that's almost required by the grammatical structure of the sentence.
The fact that all these questions require answers is why the feature is poorly written. They require table rulings.
Because you can take that damage while falling. How is this a question?
If that's how a DM rules, sure. It's undefined.
No they're not? The rules never require the common 5-foot grid. Difficult terrain and similar effects generally operate with 1 foot being the minimum relevant movement distance.
It doesn't break anything?
Entirely unproven by anything you've asserted, and contradicted by the way the words are actually used in English.
Agreed, but not relevant.
As long as they have a reaction available, agreed.
The horizontal movement offered by the feature never had a cost to negate, but I think this is a semantic thing that isn't really relevant to anything so sure, whatever.
You didn't explain the rule. You redefined a word and used your novel definition to invent a new rule and then begged the question throughout your entire "argument" in favor of it.
Absolutely not. That's not what it implies whatsoever. You take damage per 10ft, but you can fall less than 10ft, because otherwise... what the hell happens when you step off a 5ft ledge? Do you just hover there in the air? Of course not. You fall.
And to your earlier quote from Jeremy Crawford -- he's obviously talking about long jumps there.
If you must know: Manta Glide doesn't eat your movement. You can use it when it isn't your turn, and you can't use your movement when it isn't your turn. That's enough, as far as I'm concerned.
UA Hadozee Glide did not eat your movement. HOWEVER, it seems more likely that it was SUPPOSED to. Here's why:
1 - They rearranged the wording from "you get these benefits by extending your whatever," to "you can extend your whatever, and when you do, you get these benefits." This is a change, which means it might be a sloppy phrasing, and if it is, then maybe it's meant to mean, "on your turn, you can extend your whatever, and when you do, you get these benefits." And if that were true, then the point I made earlier would not apply.
2 - They separated the clauses. Before, you could nullify some damage and when you did, you could move. Again, this allowed you to move when it's not your turn. Now, you can move, and also you can nullify some damage. Since they don't both have to happen at once, you could argue that you can only nullify the damage when it's not your turn -- you can't move.
Actually, I wasn't even thinking about my own account when I said that. I often forget how old it is. No, I was banking on the theory that there was probably at least one user in the previous 6 pages of comments who had an older account than you. Let's see if I was right!
- Calavid, the OP, has 4 years
- quindraco, post #2, has 4 years
- Farling, post #5, has 4 years
- Ophidimancer, post #6, has 5 years
Shall I continue? It's kind of tedious to do, so I'm not going to. Sorry I asked. Point is, I was trying to take you down a peg, because your tone was really condescending. Should I have done? Probably not. There's really no point being heated in these things. But I figured someone needed to provide a counterpoint for poor innocent rushl, who hasn't walked these ancient halls long enough to understand the culture, and who might have gotten the impression that we endorse gatekeeping here. Shit, I'm doing it again.
Even if we assume that High Jumps don't consume movement, it's still not falling since it doesn't clear a 10 foot distance. We can all agree that if you step off a 6-inch curb, you're not "falling". But what about 1 foot? 2? 4?
You have to draw a line mechanically somewhere that separates "falling" from "not falling". I postulate that the game rules do this in the Falling rules. It defines a "Fall" as a distance that is a "great height" of at least "10 feet". If you want to rule at your table that a "Fall" begins at 6 feet, 3 and a quarter inches - but you don't take damage from "falls" less than 10 feet but greater than 6 feet, 3 and a quarter inches, that's up to you.
Fully agreed. That is the correct reading of the rule. That was my disagreement with @rushl.
I don't think it was supposed to consume movement because it was written similarly to Manta Glide, and it wouldn't make sense if it did (for reasons explained earlier in this thread that you seem to understand). And I think they separated the abilities in order to make the formatting better (like they're doing for the playtest document for "5.5e").
Yeah, sorry for being condescending. I didn't mean to (and have been quite pissed off by all the 5.5e doomers on the forum recently, but I shouldn't have brought that into this thread). I was trying to point out that I've played with this rule for years and double checked several times (I'm pretty sure I've also discussed Manta Glide on this forum around when it came out). But I shouldn't have done that, you have my apologies.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I find it highly improbable that two different, unrelated abilities have been sandwiched together under a single name. I'd challenge you to find an example of another ability with two totally unrelated functions. If the second part of Glide didn't apply to the first part, then it would be a second ability. Probably with a name like "Deft Landing".
Besides, if Gliding wasn't falling, don't you think they'd specify your decent rate? In any instance that varies from the standard falling rules (Feather Fall, for example), a decent rate is specified which overrides the normal rules. Glide doesn't exclude the downward motion from "falling", or limit how far down you can go in a single round. Since no limit is given, you go all the way down until something stops you (or you use the 500 foot limit from Xanathar's). Even if you assume that second part of the rule doesn't apply to the first, then Glide still has no provisions excluding you from taking damage by descending from a great height. Therefore, if you go more than 10 feet, you take 1d6 damage per 10 feet. That's falling.
Even Manta Glide had provisions for handling the fall damage accrued at the end of the Glide.
Easy, the Healer feat.
The two effects are very tightly linked narratively; the same physiological traits are responsible for both mechanical benefits. There's no reason to separate them into separate features.
Water under the bridge I guess. By the by, how do I join your club? Just add it to my signature? lol
You don't fall if you step off a 6 inch curb properly, sure. But if you do it by accident? Maybe you didn't realize there was a curb? You could certainly fall.
Look again. It defines a fall "from a great height" as being one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer, and then it explains that falls from 10ft or more cause damage. One can assume, then, that a fall from a less-than-great height is not one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer, and would likely include falls from 9ft or less. Yes?
Or, to pick a specifically racial feature, warforged's Constructed Resilience
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)
The Forum Loudmouth Club? That's IamSposta, Yurei, and I. We're a bit hotheaded and like to debate people and have gotten reported by people not in the group for being hotheaded in debates amongst ourselves. The purpose of it is to tell people not to report us if they see us arguing with each other. I could see if you could join, but it's not really a club. More of a "hey, we're friends and will report each other if we actually get offended by what they're saying, don't report other members of the club for us".
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Where are you finding your convenient 500 foot cliff in a dungeon? or a City? In the wilderness sure, but how are you getting to the top of that cliff in the middle of a fight?
Even if it happened, it would be tactically unfeasible. You CANNOT get back to your start point and unless you're using a bow or crossbow, you don't have to range to reach a target 250 feet away (not sure about spells but I'm fairly certain not many can reach 250 feet.)
And if you want to play semantics, you can't shoot and scoot while gliding because you've been saying gliding isn't movement. You can only split movement during your turn.
"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
Move that rely or not on your Speed reminds me of the Harengon's Rabbit Hop feature discussion we had about. It was clarified in a Sage Advice that jumping with it was not consuming movement. I have no doubt the Hardozee or Manta Glide would get a similar ruling from WoTC.
The difference there is Rabbit Hop is a limited resource and a bonus action, so it does cost something to use -- that something just isn't part of your turn's movement allotment
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)
The point is just to illustrate that movement doesn't always consume your speed., even when using a feature that let you jump X feet or move up to your speed.
I like how SA has suggested that you can figure out whether it consumes movement by looking at whether it can be used infinitely, or only a number of times per long rest. But that metric, the glide feature uses movement. But so would the Aggressive trait for orcs, and that's simply not true.
Aren't both abilities related to Healing? Besides it's a feat, not an ability.
All of which are related to the Warforged's "remarkable fortitude". Or their "Constructed Resilience". Basically, it's tough, and here are the game rules repesenting that.
Just like all of the Glide abilities relate to a Glide.