I’m thinking is is the new silvery barbs. When it first shows up in print, people freak out about how it’s going to ruin the game. Six months later, after it’s been around, and used in play, it will turn out it’s just fine.
Also, I still read it as the vertical movement doesn’t count, and the horizontal means you can only move 30’ since that’s your move speed.
I’m thinking is is the new silvery barbs. When it first shows up in print, people freak out about how it’s going to ruin the game. Six months later, after it’s been around, and used in play, it will turn out it’s just fine.
Also, I still read it as the vertical movement doesn’t count, and the horizontal means you can only move 30’ since that’s your move speed.
It probably won't be game-breaking. But, the rule explicitly states: You can move up to 5 feet horizontally for every 1 foot you descend in the air, at no movement cost to you. There's no interpretation of that rule that DOES cost movement, horizontal or vertical. Falling vertically doesn't cost movement, the rule states that going horizontal doesn't cost movement. Other than simply ignoring the rule, there's no cost.
My issue with it is not that it's so broken during combat (although it does allow effectively unlimited movement during combat). It's the out-of-combat abuses that could be problematic. It's the absurdity that the monkey-dude can move at 293 miles per hour, faster than any known flying creature. That's dumb. How many creatures do you know of that can move at almost half the speed of sound?
I’m thinking is is the new silvery barbs. When it first shows up in print, people freak out about how it’s going to ruin the game. Six months later, after it’s been around, and used in play, it will turn out it’s just fine.
Also, I still read it as the vertical movement doesn’t count, and the horizontal means you can only move 30’ since that’s your move speed.
It probably won't be game-breaking. But, the rule explicitly states: You can move up to 5 feet horizontally for every 1 foot you descend in the air, at no movement cost to you. There's no interpretation of that rule that DOES cost movement, horizontal or vertical. Falling vertically doesn't cost movement, the rule states that going horizontal doesn't cost movement. Other than simply ignoring the rule, there's no cost.
My issue with it is not that it's so broken during combat (although it does allow effectively unlimited movement during combat). It's the out-of-combat abuses that could be problematic. It's the absurdity that the monkey-dude can move at 293 miles per hour, faster than any known flying creature. That's dumb. How many creatures do you know of that can move at almost half the speed of sound?
How many do you know of that can teleport 500 feet into the air?
You're right, though. It is ridiculous.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Dimension Door, 4th level. 500 feet, straight up. Rocket around about a quarter-mile, then return to where you started. Perfect aerial recon, all done in 6 seconds before any enemies can react.
I’m thinking is is the new silvery barbs. When it first shows up in print, people freak out about how it’s going to ruin the game. Six months later, after it’s been around, and used in play, it will turn out it’s just fine.
Also, I still read it as the vertical movement doesn’t count, and the horizontal means you can only move 30’ since that’s your move speed.
It probably won't be game-breaking. But, the rule explicitly states: You can move up to 5 feet horizontally for every 1 foot you descend in the air, at no movement cost to you. There's no interpretation of that rule that DOES cost movement, horizontal or vertical.
Sure there is. The comma after “air” makes the last part of the sentence a dependent clause, which refers only to the portion of the sentence immediately preceding, but not the entire sentence.
one-foot jumps seem to be the least of issues. it's not their ears that are catching the wind, right? 1ft jump and glide doesn't put your center of mass 7ft in the air unless the Giff lifting you like a ballerina is the one doing the jumping. in my mind jumping by your own power over flat ground is like belly-flopping into a pool but briefly missing: by the time you're horizontal you are 1ft off the ground which leads to a 5ft glide and landing prone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Also, I still read it as the vertical movement doesn’t count, and the horizontal means you can only move 30’ since that’s your move speed.
You can move up to 5 feet horizontally for every 1 foot you descend in the air, at no movement cost to you. There's no interpretation of that rule that DOES cost movement, horizontal or vertical.
Sure there is. The comma after “air” makes the last part of the sentence a dependent clause, which refers only to the portion of the sentence immediately preceding, but not the entire sentence.
Just have it make situational sense in your game. People do this all the time IRL with wing suits. They’re just jumping off cliffs and traveling miles, but they can’t just hop in the air and then glide. It needs wind resistance to work which is generated by fall distance/rate of speed. They’re not birds they can’t generate their own thrust. So just say you need to fall X amount of ft before this trait can take effect. Solved.
Just have it make situational sense in your game. People do this all the time IRL with wing suits. They’re just jumping off cliffs and traveling miles, but they can’t just hop in the air and then glide. It needs wind resistance to work which is generated by fall distance/rate of speed. They’re not birds they can’t generate their own thrust. So just say you need to fall X amount of ft before this trait can take effect. Solved.
Also, I still read it as the vertical movement doesn’t count, and the horizontal means you can only move 30’ since that’s your move speed.
You can move up to 5 feet horizontally for every 1 foot you descend in the air, at no movement cost to you. There's no interpretation of that rule that DOES cost movement, horizontal or vertical.
Sure there is. The comma after “air” makes the last part of the sentence a dependent clause, which refers only to the portion of the sentence immediately preceding, but not the entire sentence.
What? I don't understand what you're saying here.
I’m saying the comma after “air” means the last part “at no movement cost to you” refers only to the immediately preceding portion. If there were no comma, then “at no movement cost to you” would refer to the whole sentence, and then I would agree with the prevailing interpretation. But there is a comma, and it’s not just there arbitrarily.
You're reaching, to put it kindly. There has never been a movement cost for vertical movement while falling, so it's illogical to assume that the text is implementing an exception to a rule that doesn't exist. It's obvious to any reader that normally, horizontal movement must be paid for from the character's movement rate, but this rule specifically waves that cost.
Also, commas get used for many reasons, not just the one you're citing. Lastly, it should be obvious, but: rule-writing is not the same as literature-writing, and there are many places where the grammar rules for one don't apply to the other.
Also, I still read it as the vertical movement doesn’t count, and the horizontal means you can only move 30’ since that’s your move speed.
You can move up to 5 feet horizontally for every 1 foot you descend in the air, at no movement cost to you. There's no interpretation of that rule that DOES cost movement, horizontal or vertical.
Sure there is. The comma after “air” makes the last part of the sentence a dependent clause, which refers only to the portion of the sentence immediately preceding, but not the entire sentence.
What? I don't understand what you're saying here.
I’m saying the comma after “air” means the last part “at no movement cost to you” refers only to the immediately preceding portion. If there were no comma, then “at no movement cost to you” would refer to the whole sentence, and then I would agree with the prevailing interpretation. But there is a comma, and it’s not just there arbitrarily.
So can you define exactly what part of the sentence is affected, and why?
The nesting was getting out of control, so I’m starting new. At first, I called it a dependent clause, but I was mistaken. It’s actually an appositive phrase, a phrase that modifies the noun phrase next to it. The noun phrase next to it is “1 foot you descend in the air.” So the appositive phrase “at no movement cost to you” refers only to the “1 foot you descend in the air” portion of the sentence.
I realize it’s an awkward phrasing they used, and people shouldn’t have to be English majors to parse the rules. And I understand my view is arguable. But my interpretation is simultaneously grammatically correct, and makes the ability reasonable.
The nesting was getting out of control, so I’m starting new. At first, I called it a dependent clause, but I was mistaken. It’s actually an appositive phrase, a phrase that modifies the noun phrase next to it. The noun phrase next to it is “1 foot you descend in the air.” So the appositive phrase “at no movement cost to you” refers only to the “1 foot you descend in the air” portion of the sentence.
I realize it’s an awkward phrasing they used, and people shouldn’t have to be English majors to parse the rules. And I understand my view is arguable. But my interpretation is simultaneously grammatically correct, and makes the ability reasonable.
Then the sentence could be accurately rearranged thusly: "For every 1 foot you descend in the air that doesn't cost you movement, you can move 5 feet horizontally." That's the argument?
Logical sense would assume that you need the actual physics of non-magical gliding to come into play for this to make sense. If you go by pure, absolute, word by word interpretation and need everything spelled out exactly how it would work, then yes it’s “broken”. Do you also make PCs take bathroom breaks during the game? No? Why not? They eat food, it has to go somewhere. There’s no “drunk” status in the game but PCs can’t just drink gallons of booze. Some things just don’t need to be written out.
Just have it make situational sense in your game. People do this all the time IRL with wing suits. They’re just jumping off cliffs and traveling miles, but they can’t just hop in the air and then glide. It needs wind resistance to work which is generated by fall distance/rate of speed. They’re not birds they can’t generate their own thrust. So just say you need to fall X amount of ft before this trait can take effect. Solved.
So you agree it's broken?
Logical sense would assume that you need the actual physics of non-magical gliding to come into play for this to make sense. If you go by pure, absolute, word by word interpretation and need everything spelled out exactly how it would work, then yes it’s “broken”. Do you also make PCs take bathroom breaks during the game? No? Why not? They eat food, it has to go somewhere. There’s no “drunk” status in the game but PCs can’t just drink gallons of booze. Some things just don’t need to be written out.
The nesting was getting out of control, so I’m starting new. At first, I called it a dependent clause, but I was mistaken. It’s actually an appositive phrase, a phrase that modifies the noun phrase next to it. The noun phrase next to it is “1 foot you descend in the air.” So the appositive phrase “at no movement cost to you” refers only to the “1 foot you descend in the air” portion of the sentence.
I realize it’s an awkward phrasing they used, and people shouldn’t have to be English majors to parse the rules. And I understand my view is arguable. But my interpretation is simultaneously grammatically correct, and makes the ability reasonable.
Then the sentence could be accurately rearranged thusly: "For every 1 foot you descend in the air that doesn't cost you movement, you can move 5 feet horizontally." That's the argument?
That could work, though I'd probably go with a comma and "which" after air, instead of "that." If I were writing it, I'd probably do something like:
For every 1 foot you descend (which costs no movement), you can move 5 feet horizontally.
I tend to overuse parenthesis, but I think that's clearer than commas in this case. Also, I'd take out the "in the air" part, because that's implied and it tightens up the sentence to remove it. Though I guess that might open up people saying you can do it underwater, so maybe you do need to leave "in the air" in there.
The nesting was getting out of control, so I’m starting new. At first, I called it a dependent clause, but I was mistaken. It’s actually an appositive phrase, a phrase that modifies the noun phrase next to it. The noun phrase next to it is “1 foot you descend in the air.” So the appositive phrase “at no movement cost to you” refers only to the “1 foot you descend in the air” portion of the sentence.
I realize it’s an awkward phrasing they used, and people shouldn’t have to be English majors to parse the rules. And I understand my view is arguable. But my interpretation is simultaneously grammatically correct, and makes the ability reasonable.
Again, rules-writing does not equal literature-writing.
It makes no sense to add the phrase "does not cost movement" to the process of moving vertically due to falling, as that movement has never had a movement cost. However, moving horizontally does have a movement cost. Therefore, if the horizontal movement is not intended to cost movement, a phrase must be added to to countermand the previously existing rule. The only part of the process that could require spending movement is the horizontal part. Therefore, an instruction to ignore movement cost can only apply to the movement that requires a cost.
You don't say "When you make an attack with a melee weapon, roll to hit, which does not cost movement." Or "When you drop to zero hit points, make a death save, which does not cost movement."
I applaud your herculean efforts to twist logic like a pretzel to achieve the ends you desire, but just call a spade a spade. The rule is silly, and quite obviously so. It makes perfect sense to house-rule it away, but just say that's what you want to do. You don't need to jump through linguistic hoops to get there.
Honestly, at my table, we'll be ignoring the "does not cost movement" rule as well. :D
Just have it make situational sense in your game. People do this all the time IRL with wing suits. They’re just jumping off cliffs and traveling miles, but they can’t just hop in the air and then glide. It needs wind resistance to work which is generated by fall distance/rate of speed. They’re not birds they can’t generate their own thrust. So just say you need to fall X amount of ft before this trait can take effect. Solved.
So you agree it's broken?
Logical sense would assume that you need the actual physics of non-magical gliding to come into play for this to make sense. If you go by pure, absolute, word by word interpretation and need everything spelled out exactly how it would work, then yes it’s “broken”. Do you also make PCs take bathroom breaks during the game? No? Why not? They eat food, it has to go somewhere. There’s no “drunk” status in the game but PCs can’t just drink gallons of booze. Some things just don’t need to be written out.
This instance is not the same as your examples. There is no rule about bathroom breaks - either for or against. Nothing says you can't, nothing says you must. That's left to interpretation.
However, the Glide rule specifically and explicitly defines - and allows - the action. This is not a case of filling in an empty space. This is a directly stated legal effect.
The glide isn't broken. How many 5,000 foot tall cliffs will you be climbing??!!?? Frankly the feature is useless in dungeon crawls and bad at best in most open-world campaigns where it will never be used. You have to literally be playing solely in the mountains and pinnacles for this to be as broken as you say, and then? Hadozee have no resistance to high altitude, so... Apart from the one dimension door gimmick, its fine.
If you're going to be angry about something, it ought to be the 0 fall damage. The Hadozee can cast feather fall for free, that's way more powerful than the main glide ability.
I’m thinking is is the new silvery barbs. When it first shows up in print, people freak out about how it’s going to ruin the game. Six months later, after it’s been around, and used in play, it will turn out it’s just fine.
Also, I still read it as the vertical movement doesn’t count, and the horizontal means you can only move 30’ since that’s your move speed.
It probably won't be game-breaking. But, the rule explicitly states: You can move up to 5 feet horizontally for every 1 foot you descend in the air, at no movement cost to you. There's no interpretation of that rule that DOES cost movement, horizontal or vertical. Falling vertically doesn't cost movement, the rule states that going horizontal doesn't cost movement. Other than simply ignoring the rule, there's no cost.
My issue with it is not that it's so broken during combat (although it does allow effectively unlimited movement during combat). It's the out-of-combat abuses that could be problematic. It's the absurdity that the monkey-dude can move at 293 miles per hour, faster than any known flying creature. That's dumb. How many creatures do you know of that can move at almost half the speed of sound?
How many do you know of that can teleport 500 feet into the air?
You're right, though. It is ridiculous.
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Dimension Door, 4th level. 500 feet, straight up. Rocket around about a quarter-mile, then return to where you started. Perfect aerial recon, all done in 6 seconds before any enemies can react.
Zooom!
Sure there is. The comma after “air” makes the last part of the sentence a dependent clause, which refers only to the portion of the sentence immediately preceding, but not the entire sentence.
one-foot jumps seem to be the least of issues. it's not their ears that are catching the wind, right? 1ft jump and glide doesn't put your center of mass 7ft in the air unless the Giff lifting you like a ballerina is the one doing the jumping. in my mind jumping by your own power over flat ground is like belly-flopping into a pool but briefly missing: by the time you're horizontal you are 1ft off the ground which leads to a 5ft glide and landing prone.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
What? I don't understand what you're saying here.
Just have it make situational sense in your game. People do this all the time IRL with wing suits. They’re just jumping off cliffs and traveling miles, but they can’t just hop in the air and then glide. It needs wind resistance to work which is generated by fall distance/rate of speed. They’re not birds they can’t generate their own thrust. So just say you need to fall X amount of ft before this trait can take effect. Solved.
So you agree it's broken?
I’m saying the comma after “air” means the last part “at no movement cost to you” refers only to the immediately preceding portion. If there were no comma, then “at no movement cost to you” would refer to the whole sentence, and then I would agree with the prevailing interpretation. But there is a comma, and it’s not just there arbitrarily.
You're reaching, to put it kindly. There has never been a movement cost for vertical movement while falling, so it's illogical to assume that the text is implementing an exception to a rule that doesn't exist. It's obvious to any reader that normally, horizontal movement must be paid for from the character's movement rate, but this rule specifically waves that cost.
Also, commas get used for many reasons, not just the one you're citing. Lastly, it should be obvious, but: rule-writing is not the same as literature-writing, and there are many places where the grammar rules for one don't apply to the other.
So can you define exactly what part of the sentence is affected, and why?
The nesting was getting out of control, so I’m starting new.
At first, I called it a dependent clause, but I was mistaken. It’s actually an appositive phrase, a phrase that modifies the noun phrase next to it. The noun phrase next to it is “1 foot you descend in the air.” So the appositive phrase “at no movement cost to you” refers only to the “1 foot you descend in the air” portion of the sentence.
I realize it’s an awkward phrasing they used, and people shouldn’t have to be English majors to parse the rules. And I understand my view is arguable. But my interpretation is simultaneously grammatically correct, and makes the ability reasonable.
Then the sentence could be accurately rearranged thusly: "For every 1 foot you descend in the air that doesn't cost you movement, you can move 5 feet horizontally." That's the argument?
Logical sense would assume that you need the actual physics of non-magical gliding to come into play for this to make sense. If you go by pure, absolute, word by word interpretation and need everything spelled out exactly how it would work, then yes it’s “broken”. Do you also make PCs take bathroom breaks during the game? No? Why not? They eat food, it has to go somewhere. There’s no “drunk” status in the game but PCs can’t just drink gallons of booze. Some things just don’t need to be written out.
Logical sense would assume that you need the actual physics of non-magical gliding to come into play for this to make sense. If you go by pure, absolute, word by word interpretation and need everything spelled out exactly how it would work, then yes it’s “broken”. Do you also make PCs take bathroom breaks during the game? No? Why not? They eat food, it has to go somewhere. There’s no “drunk” status in the game but PCs can’t just drink gallons of booze. Some things just don’t need to be written out.
That could work, though I'd probably go with a comma and "which" after air, instead of "that." If I were writing it, I'd probably do something like:
For every 1 foot you descend (which costs no movement), you can move 5 feet horizontally.
I tend to overuse parenthesis, but I think that's clearer than commas in this case. Also, I'd take out the "in the air" part, because that's implied and it tightens up the sentence to remove it. Though I guess that might open up people saying you can do it underwater, so maybe you do need to leave "in the air" in there.
Again, rules-writing does not equal literature-writing.
It makes no sense to add the phrase "does not cost movement" to the process of moving vertically due to falling, as that movement has never had a movement cost. However, moving horizontally does have a movement cost. Therefore, if the horizontal movement is not intended to cost movement, a phrase must be added to to countermand the previously existing rule. The only part of the process that could require spending movement is the horizontal part. Therefore, an instruction to ignore movement cost can only apply to the movement that requires a cost.
You don't say "When you make an attack with a melee weapon, roll to hit, which does not cost movement." Or "When you drop to zero hit points, make a death save, which does not cost movement."
I applaud your herculean efforts to twist logic like a pretzel to achieve the ends you desire, but just call a spade a spade. The rule is silly, and quite obviously so. It makes perfect sense to house-rule it away, but just say that's what you want to do. You don't need to jump through linguistic hoops to get there.
Honestly, at my table, we'll be ignoring the "does not cost movement" rule as well. :D
This instance is not the same as your examples. There is no rule about bathroom breaks - either for or against. Nothing says you can't, nothing says you must. That's left to interpretation.
However, the Glide rule specifically and explicitly defines - and allows - the action. This is not a case of filling in an empty space. This is a directly stated legal effect.
The glide isn't broken. How many 5,000 foot tall cliffs will you be climbing??!!?? Frankly the feature is useless in dungeon crawls and bad at best in most open-world campaigns where it will never be used. You have to literally be playing solely in the mountains and pinnacles for this to be as broken as you say, and then? Hadozee have no resistance to high altitude, so... Apart from the one dimension door gimmick, its fine.
If you're going to be angry about something, it ought to be the 0 fall damage. The Hadozee can cast feather fall for free, that's way more powerful than the main glide ability.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!