Call me lackadaisical, but this just feels like such a non-issue to me. I'm not going to argue that it's not badly written - it absolutely is. But careless writing and power creep have been a thing for a while, and none of it has ended up being particularly game-breaking.
Aside from the Hadozee being pretty setting-specific, the 150-foot-bunny-hop feels... pretty underwhelming? If your DM doesn't immediately veto it (which they should, because 30+ hops in six seconds is Peasant Railgun levels of absurd) you're 150 feet away. At lower levels, that'll get you killed. At higher levels, it's no better than a selection of spells and class features. Likewise, if, for some reason, you jump out of an airship, the odds of productively using 2,500 feet of movement with steadily decreasing altitude feel pretty slim.
Most challenges in D&D (especially combat) are designed to be overcome by a party, rather than a solo player. Excessive movement is great, up until it makes support untenable - then it's just diminishing returns.
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
As it happens, games and literature use the same rules of grammar, assuming they are written in the same language. This is supported by the over-arching rule in this edition to use the "plain English" meaning of words and phrases.
The vertical movement in this case is not falling, its gliding. The falling rules don't apply. Its a different thing, that's why they use a different word. Then they clarify how gliding works in this case, since it does not follow the falling rules.
I'm not jumping through any hoops, or twisting logic. I'm just following the "plain English" general rule. It's getting us to about the same place, you're just asserting it takes a house rule to get there. I'm saying, no, that's just the RAW. No house rule required.
As it happens, games and literature use the same rules of grammar, assuming they are written in the same language. This is supported by the over-arching rule in this edition to use the "plain English" meaning of words and phrases.
The vertical movement in this case is not falling, its gliding. The falling rules don't apply. Its a different thing, that's why they use a different word. Then they clarify how gliding works in this case, since it does not follow the falling rules.
I'm not jumping through any hoops, or twisting logic. I'm just following the "plain English" general rule. It's getting us to about the same place, you're just asserting it takes a house rule to get there. I'm saying, no, that's just the RAW. No house rule required.
Really, if there's competing interpretations of a rule or wording, it's the one that produces an absurd result -- like, for instance, being able to move hundreds of feet in one round for free -- that should require extra explanation and defense
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)
As it happens, games and literature use the same rules of grammar, assuming they are written in the same language. This is supported by the over-arching rule in this edition to use the "plain English" meaning of words and phrases.
The vertical movement in this case is not falling, its gliding. The falling rules don't apply. Its a different thing, that's why they use a different word. Then they clarify how gliding works in this case, since it does not follow the falling rules.
I'm not jumping through any hoops, or twisting logic. I'm just following the "plain English" general rule. It's getting us to about the same place, you're just asserting it takes a house rule to get there. I'm saying, no, that's just the RAW. No house rule required.
If you insist on imagining elements within the text that don't exist, there's no possible conversation that will convince you otherwise. Nowhere is the vertical movement defined as "gliding" movement. It's ridiculous to include a sentence to create an exception for a rule that doesn't exist. You're sacrificing common sense on the altar of grammatical pedantry. While I enjoy being trolled as much as the next person, I fear there's little more to be gained here.
As it happens, games and literature use the same rules of grammar, assuming they are written in the same language. This is supported by the over-arching rule in this edition to use the "plain English" meaning of words and phrases.
The vertical movement in this case is not falling, its gliding. The falling rules don't apply. Its a different thing, that's why they use a different word. Then they clarify how gliding works in this case, since it does not follow the falling rules.
I'm not jumping through any hoops, or twisting logic. I'm just following the "plain English" general rule. It's getting us to about the same place, you're just asserting it takes a house rule to get there. I'm saying, no, that's just the RAW. No house rule required.
If you insist on imagining elements within the text that don't exist, there's no possible conversation that will convince you otherwise. Nowhere is the vertical movement defined as "gliding" movement. It's ridiculous to include a sentence to create an exception for a rule that doesn't exist. You're sacrificing common sense on the altar of grammatical pedantry. While I enjoy being trolled as much as the next person, I fear there's little more to be gained here.
Safe travels, and good gaming!
The entire ability description is defining gliding movement in the case of this creature. That's what it's doing. How far you go forward vs how far you go down. This is creating a new definition for this type of movement, which only one other creature has, and in that case it works differently. Making ad hominem attacks isn't exactly helping your case.
that leads to what seems absurd where the reaction for falling isn't used when you are gliding as you are not falling, but it seems obvious they were designed to be used together.
Really, if there's competing interpretations of a rule or wording, it's the one that produces an absurd result -- like, for instance, being able to move hundreds of feet in one round for free -- that should require extra explanation and defense
But that's disingenuous. There is exactly one interpretation of the rule at play here, and it leads to being able to move hundreds of feet in one round (although not for free). Just about the only wiggle room I see for interpretation is what "in the air" means, but I haven't seen anyone actually getting into those weeds.
No one has posted an interpretation that stops the first bullet point of the Hadozee glide from working, which is how you get quintuple horizontal movement from vertical movement. Separately, no one has posted an interpretation that stops the Hadozee reaction from soaking all falling damage after doing this. The closest we have is there are people in this thread claiming that if you use the movement you won't fall, but all that does is turn into an argument that Hadozee don't need to use their reaction because they're gliding, not falling, and there's no such thing as gliding damage.
What we have in abundance - as should surprise absolutely no-one - is people arguing that any sane DM will nerf Hadozee because they're overpowered, which was OP's whole point.
The entire ability description is defining gliding movement in the case of this creature. That's what it's doing. How far you go forward vs how far you go down. This is creating a new definition for this type of movement, which only one other creature has, and in that case it works differently. Making ad hominem attacks isn't exactly helping your case.
I thought of another approach that may explain it for you. First, let's recap the rule:
Glide. If you are not incapacitated or wearing heavy armor, you can extend your skin membranes and glide. When you do so, you can perform the following aerial maneuvers:
You can move up to 5 feet horizontally for every 1 foot you descend in the air, at no movement cost to you.
When you would take damage from a fall, you can use your reaction to reduce the fall's damage to 0.
The Glide ability has two parts. First, you can move horizontally when "descending in the air". There are no rules for spending movement to "descend in the air". Per the Movement rules:
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules here.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? If I've not been falling though, why does Glide include a Reaction to avoid damage that I can't possibly take while Gliding? 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. But, all movement spends in the game are in 5-foot increments. 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.
Ergo: 1) Gliding is falling. 2) Falling does not consume movement. 3) Falling does damage, but the player can choose to negate it. 4) Horizontal movement does consume movement, however, that is negated.
I believe that is the most exhausting explanation of a rule I've ever had to make. :D I hope it helps.
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!
And everything within a half-mile radius (or more, depending on their perception modifiers) knows you're there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
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!
And everything within a half-mile radius (or more, depending on their perception modifiers) knows you're there.
You don't quite manage to break the speed of sound with this entirely reasonable rules interpretation, so at least you don't have to worry about your dimension door turning into a thunder step
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 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.
This is incorrect, from a language perspective. The "at no movement cost to you" modifies the thing you're being allowed to do, which is move 5 feet. That's the part it refers to. If it referred to the 1 foot you descend, what it would mean is that the descent not costing movement is a condition that must be met in order for you to glide horizontally; that is, if you descend in a way that does cost movement, you don't get to move horizontally with the feature.
FWIW, I think the description of the Glide ability could be clarified.
Glide. If you are not incapacitated or wearing heavy armor, you can extend your skin membranes and glide. When you do so, you can perform the following aerial maneuvers:
To:
Glide. If you are not incapacitated or wearing heavy armor while you are falling, you can extend your skin membranes and glide. When you do so, you can perform the following aerial maneuvers:
I believe that how the rule is meant to be (as I described above), but that would make it explicitly clear. It also resolves the whole jumping thing, since jumping usually doesn't include falling. Thus most jumps are not eligible for Glide movement.
At my table I would adjudicate that any descent distance of less than 10 feet isn't considered "falling" (since it doesn't impose falling damage, and the only difference between free movement down and "falling" is the damage). So, you must reach a height of at least 10 feet to start a Glide. That lines up with the nature of the rule, and makes sense to me from an in-world perspective as well. Plus, it adds an additional cost: the player must choose to lose their Reaction or take 1d6 damage per 50 feet of horizontal movement gained. That helps to level out the significant amount of mobility gained.
My adjudication above would get a bit strained as the descent distance approaches (but does not reach) 10 feet, but that's fine. I might rule at the moment that an 8 or 9 foot drop is a "fall" with 1d6 damage (and "glide-able") or not, depending on the circumstances. Probably based on if the player is trying to game the system by choosing a drop distance, vs a drop distance set by coincidence.
I also think that 5 feet of horizontal movement per 1 foot of vertical movement is whack. Another alternative is to rewrite Glide:
Glide. If you are not incapacitated or wearing heavy armor and you fall at least 10 feet, you can extend your skin membranes and glide. When you do so, you can perform the following aerial maneuvers:
You can move up to 5 feet horizontally for every 5 feet you descend in the air, at no movement cost to you.
Your descent rate slows to 60 feet per round, and you take no falling damage when you land.
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.
SagaTympana already explained that your grammar is incorrect, but in addition, you are arguing that the clause "at no movement cost to you" contributes nothing to the rule, because falling never has a movement cost. While it is 100% the case that WOTC can and has included spurious rules text of this sort before, where they added text that adds no semantic meaning, it's generally a big red flag when your interpretation leads you to the conclusion that they've done this. It means you should take a step back and reflect on how certain you are of your reading.
But also SagaTympana is 100% correct - you are violating the rules of English grammar. Your "interpretation" is simply a violation of the RAW.
I feel this is a weird mechanization of the idea. Theoretically would it work better if they gave them something like a Fly (Glide) speed? In that it's flight but they can't gain altitude?
Yeah, this. I think @scatterbraind's interpretation fixes things, but even with that, it's just a pain in the ass for everyone to keep up with and crunch the numbers. I'd rather just limit it to "can't gain altitude."
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.
This is incorrect, from a language perspective. The "at no movement cost to you" modifies the thing you're being allowed to do, which is move 5 feet. That's the part it refers to. If it referred to the 1 foot you descend, what it would mean is that the descent not costing movement is a condition that must be met in order for you to glide horizontally; that is, if you descend in a way that does cost movement, you don't get to move horizontally with the feature.
Saga, I have the utmost respect for your rules interpretations and typically agree with them. So, please don't take this as just me being argumentative. Are you saying I'm incorrect that it's an appositive phrase, or are you saying that it might be one, but that's not how they work?
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.
This is incorrect, from a language perspective. The "at no movement cost to you" modifies the thing you're being allowed to do, which is move 5 feet. That's the part it refers to. If it referred to the 1 foot you descend, what it would mean is that the descent not costing movement is a condition that must be met in order for you to glide horizontally; that is, if you descend in a way that does cost movement, you don't get to move horizontally with the feature.
Saga, I have the utmost respect for your rules interpretations and typically agree with them. So, please don't take this as just me being argumentative. Are you saying I'm incorrect that it's an appositive phrase, or are you saying that it might be one, but that's not how they work?
If we want to get into the grammar, which I am always happy to do, it's an adverbial prepositional phrase. It's prepositional because of the preposition, "at," and it's adverbial because it describes the manner in which you may move five feet. Even if we interpret it as describing the one-foot descent, rather than the 5-foot movement, it's still the same grammatical object, but then it serves to further limit the circumstances under which you can use the feature, since now it's not just any time you descend but only when you descend in this specific manner.
Appositives are nominals (so they operate syntactically like nouns) and restate or rename the thing they refer to, like "My father, George" (name changed for anonymity :p), or "The Flash, the fastest man alive."
Ergo: 1) Gliding is falling. 2) Falling does not consume movement. 3) Falling does damage, but the player can choose to negate it. 4) Horizontal movement does consume movement, however, that is negated.
I believe that is the most exhausting explanation of a rule I've ever had to make. :D I hope it helps.
First, I appreciate you taking the time to write all that out, I even upvoted it. And for keeping cool while you were doing it, which I'm sure was difficult. I still don't agree, but I do appreciate it, and I will try to be just as respectful.
Here's my take. I disagree with the premise that gliding is falling. I think it is essentially a new movement mode they invented. (I think its weirdly and unnecessarily complex for 5e, and I think we can all agree the wording is terrible, but there it is. And I'd really prefer it if they just stuck with the one for simic hybrids and draconians.) To me, the second bullet re-enforces this new mode. It gives you a second option for how to use the wing flap. You can choose to glide down, or to just drop. Say you're at the top of this 500' cliff and you want to get to the bottom. Sometimes, there might be some reason why you want to get down there more slowly. Maybe you were pushed off and are trying to stay in range of something at the top. Maybe you want to shoot arrows at something at the bottom, or you just really want to save your reaction, whatever the reason, you choose to glide. it takes a good long time, just spiraling down. And yes, it would mean 30 feet of back and forth movement and 6 feet of descending on your turn. And yes, that would be a mess (see above about how its unnecessarily complex). When you reach the bottom, you take no falling damage, because you didn't fall, you glided. For the other option, maybe you might need to get to the bottom of this hypothetical cliff in a hurry. You can go the whole 500 feet in one go, and then use your reaction and still take no damage. I see the bullet points as two different options, not you glide down and then you still need to use your reaction to avoid the damage.
As for the 7-foot thing, uneven distances have always been a problem. Under RAW now, if that cliff is 501 feet, and you jump down, you spend six seconds hovering a foot off the ground before you hit.
The whole thing is puzzling to me, I have to say. I usually try not to get dragged into rules debates, and most of the time, when I'm seeing one person being told they're wrong by multiple people, I find that evidence enough that the one person is wrong. It is not lost on me that I am now "that guy." But usually, "that guy" is trying to find some novel rules interpretation to break the game. I've got the interpretation that doesn't break the game, and everyone is coming at me that, no, the broken way is the right way to read the rule. I guess that's getting into RAI instead of RAW, though this is tips & tactics, not rules and game mechanics.
The whole thing is puzzling to me, I have to say. I usually try not to get dragged into rules debates, and most of the time, when I'm seeing one person being told they're wrong by multiple people, I find that evidence enough that the one person is wrong. It is not lost on me that I am now "that guy." But usually, "that guy" is trying to find some novel rules interpretation to break the game. I've got the interpretation that doesn't break the game, and everyone is coming at me that, no, the broken way is the right way to read the rule. I guess that's getting into RAI instead of RAW, though this is tips & tactics, not rules and game mechanics.
I like to call that (e.g. the bolded part) RAM (Rules As Malice).
It's my opinion that "good rules writing" means that all the reasonable interpretations of what you wrote are okay for play. The rule can be ambiguous or unclear, as long as an honest effort to interpret it doesn't lead someone to a conclusion that would suck at the table. (Ideally, all interpretations aren't merely neutral but actively good for the table. But let's not get greedy.) The responsibility of saying, "well no, it doesn't work like this, even though it might sound that way -- because that would be a garbage fire," rests on the shoulders of the rules writers, not the readers. And they can save themselves the time by just writing the rules better.
I can't prove this gliding thing is bad rules writing, because I haven't experienced it at the table. But it looks like bad rules writing. And it looks SO MUCH like bad rules writing, that I probably never actually will experience it, because I'm not trying to have a bad time when I play D&D, and there's plenty of material I can use which doesn't look like it's going to suck.
I might at some point play with some rules inspired by these rules. You know, a DM fix, or something. But that's not the same thing, now is it?
First, I appreciate you taking the time to write all that out, I even upvoted it. And for keeping cool while you were doing it, which I'm sure was difficult. I still don't agree, but I do appreciate it, and I will try to be just as respectful.
It gives you a second option for how to use the wing flap. You can choose to glide down, or to just drop.
That interpretation breaks Glide into two different, unrelated abilities. The first you read as a new form of movement, akin to swimming or climbing. You just go down and sideways. The second is immunity to falling damage with a Reaction. The only commonality between those is "movement down". There are dozens of different abilities with stronger ties - yet they remain separate. There has never been a single ability that has two distinct and unrelated effects, to my knowledge, and I wouldn't expect one now.
As for the movement, if any of the movement cost some of your speed, the rules would say so. See any rule that introduces a different type of movement for a character.
The Barbarian:
Bestial Soul
Climbing
You gain a climbing speed equal to your walking speed...
Swimming
You gain a swimming speed equal to your walking speed...
Spirit Walker
Eagle
While raging, you have a flying speed equal to your current walking speed...
The Cleric:
Stormborn
At 17th level, you have a flying speed equal to your current walking speed...
Steps of Night
...you can magically give yourself a flying speed equal to your walking speed for 1 minute...
The Ranger:
Roving (6th Level)
Your walking speed increases by 5, and you gain a climbing speed and a swimming speed equal to your walking speed...
I'm sure there's more you can find if you look. Basically, if Glide was a new form of movement, it would say it gives you a Glide speed equal to your walking speed, or some fixed value. That's the rule standard for new speeds, and you'd see that here if it was the case. All forms of movement either get their own speed, or use an existing speed which the character possesses. And they literally and specifically use the word "speed", which is the mechanical value that determines how much movement that type allows. Without that rule, you have no idea how far the movement can go. The rule isn't here because it's not a new speed. It's falling, and there's already rules for that.
I've got the interpretation that doesn't break the game, and everyone is coming at me that, no, the broken way is the right way to read the rule.
The problem here is that the rule as written is "broken". Probably not from a purely combat-focused standpoint, but it is quite abusable by a creative mind. And it's certainly pushed well past the bounds or reasonable verisimilitude with sane physics. If you read this rule and think it doesn't make good sense, then you've read it right. :D
Call me lackadaisical, but this just feels like such a non-issue to me. I'm not going to argue that it's not badly written - it absolutely is. But careless writing and power creep have been a thing for a while, and none of it has ended up being particularly game-breaking.
Aside from the Hadozee being pretty setting-specific, the 150-foot-bunny-hop feels... pretty underwhelming? If your DM doesn't immediately veto it (which they should, because 30+ hops in six seconds is Peasant Railgun levels of absurd) you're 150 feet away. At lower levels, that'll get you killed. At higher levels, it's no better than a selection of spells and class features. Likewise, if, for some reason, you jump out of an airship, the odds of productively using 2,500 feet of movement with steadily decreasing altitude feel pretty slim.
Most challenges in D&D (especially combat) are designed to be overcome by a party, rather than a solo player. Excessive movement is great, up until it makes support untenable - then it's just diminishing returns.
As it happens, games and literature use the same rules of grammar, assuming they are written in the same language. This is supported by the over-arching rule in this edition to use the "plain English" meaning of words and phrases.
The vertical movement in this case is not falling, its gliding. The falling rules don't apply. Its a different thing, that's why they use a different word. Then they clarify how gliding works in this case, since it does not follow the falling rules.
I'm not jumping through any hoops, or twisting logic. I'm just following the "plain English" general rule. It's getting us to about the same place, you're just asserting it takes a house rule to get there. I'm saying, no, that's just the RAW. No house rule required.
Really, if there's competing interpretations of a rule or wording, it's the one that produces an absurd result -- like, for instance, being able to move hundreds of feet in one round for free -- that should require extra explanation and defense
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)
If you insist on imagining elements within the text that don't exist, there's no possible conversation that will convince you otherwise. Nowhere is the vertical movement defined as "gliding" movement. It's ridiculous to include a sentence to create an exception for a rule that doesn't exist. You're sacrificing common sense on the altar of grammatical pedantry. While I enjoy being trolled as much as the next person, I fear there's little more to be gained here.
Safe travels, and good gaming!
The entire ability description is defining gliding movement in the case of this creature. That's what it's doing. How far you go forward vs how far you go down. This is creating a new definition for this type of movement, which only one other creature has, and in that case it works differently. Making ad hominem attacks isn't exactly helping your case.
that leads to what seems absurd where the reaction for falling isn't used when you are gliding as you are not falling, but it seems obvious they were designed to be used together.
But that's disingenuous. There is exactly one interpretation of the rule at play here, and it leads to being able to move hundreds of feet in one round (although not for free). Just about the only wiggle room I see for interpretation is what "in the air" means, but I haven't seen anyone actually getting into those weeds.
No one has posted an interpretation that stops the first bullet point of the Hadozee glide from working, which is how you get quintuple horizontal movement from vertical movement. Separately, no one has posted an interpretation that stops the Hadozee reaction from soaking all falling damage after doing this. The closest we have is there are people in this thread claiming that if you use the movement you won't fall, but all that does is turn into an argument that Hadozee don't need to use their reaction because they're gliding, not falling, and there's no such thing as gliding damage.
What we have in abundance - as should surprise absolutely no-one - is people arguing that any sane DM will nerf Hadozee because they're overpowered, which was OP's whole point.
I thought of another approach that may explain it for you. First, let's recap the rule:
The Glide ability has two parts. First, you can move horizontally when "descending in the air". There are no rules for spending movement to "descend in the air". Per the Movement rules:
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? If I've not been falling though, why does Glide include a Reaction to avoid damage that I can't possibly take while Gliding? 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. But, all movement spends in the game are in 5-foot increments. 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.
Ergo:
1) Gliding is falling.
2) Falling does not consume movement.
3) Falling does damage, but the player can choose to negate it.
4) Horizontal movement does consume movement, however, that is negated.
I believe that is the most exhausting explanation of a rule I've ever had to make. :D I hope it helps.
And everything within a half-mile radius (or more, depending on their perception modifiers) knows you're there.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You don't quite manage to break the speed of sound with this entirely reasonable rules interpretation, so at least you don't have to worry about your dimension door turning into a thunder step
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)
This is incorrect, from a language perspective. The "at no movement cost to you" modifies the thing you're being allowed to do, which is move 5 feet. That's the part it refers to. If it referred to the 1 foot you descend, what it would mean is that the descent not costing movement is a condition that must be met in order for you to glide horizontally; that is, if you descend in a way that does cost movement, you don't get to move horizontally with the feature.
FWIW, I think the description of the Glide ability could be clarified.
To:
I believe that how the rule is meant to be (as I described above), but that would make it explicitly clear. It also resolves the whole jumping thing, since jumping usually doesn't include falling. Thus most jumps are not eligible for Glide movement.
At my table I would adjudicate that any descent distance of less than 10 feet isn't considered "falling" (since it doesn't impose falling damage, and the only difference between free movement down and "falling" is the damage). So, you must reach a height of at least 10 feet to start a Glide. That lines up with the nature of the rule, and makes sense to me from an in-world perspective as well. Plus, it adds an additional cost: the player must choose to lose their Reaction or take 1d6 damage per 50 feet of horizontal movement gained. That helps to level out the significant amount of mobility gained.
My adjudication above would get a bit strained as the descent distance approaches (but does not reach) 10 feet, but that's fine. I might rule at the moment that an 8 or 9 foot drop is a "fall" with 1d6 damage (and "glide-able") or not, depending on the circumstances. Probably based on if the player is trying to game the system by choosing a drop distance, vs a drop distance set by coincidence.
I also think that 5 feet of horizontal movement per 1 foot of vertical movement is whack. Another alternative is to rewrite Glide:
That seems much more reasonable to me.
SagaTympana already explained that your grammar is incorrect, but in addition, you are arguing that the clause "at no movement cost to you" contributes nothing to the rule, because falling never has a movement cost. While it is 100% the case that WOTC can and has included spurious rules text of this sort before, where they added text that adds no semantic meaning, it's generally a big red flag when your interpretation leads you to the conclusion that they've done this. It means you should take a step back and reflect on how certain you are of your reading.
But also SagaTympana is 100% correct - you are violating the rules of English grammar. Your "interpretation" is simply a violation of the RAW.
Yeah, this. I think @scatterbraind's interpretation fixes things, but even with that, it's just a pain in the ass for everyone to keep up with and crunch the numbers. I'd rather just limit it to "can't gain altitude."
Saga, I have the utmost respect for your rules interpretations and typically agree with them. So, please don't take this as just me being argumentative. Are you saying I'm incorrect that it's an appositive phrase, or are you saying that it might be one, but that's not how they work?
If we want to get into the grammar, which I am always happy to do, it's an adverbial prepositional phrase. It's prepositional because of the preposition, "at," and it's adverbial because it describes the manner in which you may move five feet. Even if we interpret it as describing the one-foot descent, rather than the 5-foot movement, it's still the same grammatical object, but then it serves to further limit the circumstances under which you can use the feature, since now it's not just any time you descend but only when you descend in this specific manner.
Appositives are nominals (so they operate syntactically like nouns) and restate or rename the thing they refer to, like "My father, George" (name changed for anonymity :p), or "The Flash, the fastest man alive."
First, I appreciate you taking the time to write all that out, I even upvoted it. And for keeping cool while you were doing it, which I'm sure was difficult. I still don't agree, but I do appreciate it, and I will try to be just as respectful.
Here's my take. I disagree with the premise that gliding is falling. I think it is essentially a new movement mode they invented. (I think its weirdly and unnecessarily complex for 5e, and I think we can all agree the wording is terrible, but there it is. And I'd really prefer it if they just stuck with the one for simic hybrids and draconians.) To me, the second bullet re-enforces this new mode. It gives you a second option for how to use the wing flap. You can choose to glide down, or to just drop. Say you're at the top of this 500' cliff and you want to get to the bottom. Sometimes, there might be some reason why you want to get down there more slowly. Maybe you were pushed off and are trying to stay in range of something at the top. Maybe you want to shoot arrows at something at the bottom, or you just really want to save your reaction, whatever the reason, you choose to glide. it takes a good long time, just spiraling down. And yes, it would mean 30 feet of back and forth movement and 6 feet of descending on your turn. And yes, that would be a mess (see above about how its unnecessarily complex). When you reach the bottom, you take no falling damage, because you didn't fall, you glided. For the other option, maybe you might need to get to the bottom of this hypothetical cliff in a hurry. You can go the whole 500 feet in one go, and then use your reaction and still take no damage. I see the bullet points as two different options, not you glide down and then you still need to use your reaction to avoid the damage.
As for the 7-foot thing, uneven distances have always been a problem. Under RAW now, if that cliff is 501 feet, and you jump down, you spend six seconds hovering a foot off the ground before you hit.
The whole thing is puzzling to me, I have to say. I usually try not to get dragged into rules debates, and most of the time, when I'm seeing one person being told they're wrong by multiple people, I find that evidence enough that the one person is wrong. It is not lost on me that I am now "that guy." But usually, "that guy" is trying to find some novel rules interpretation to break the game. I've got the interpretation that doesn't break the game, and everyone is coming at me that, no, the broken way is the right way to read the rule. I guess that's getting into RAI instead of RAW, though this is tips & tactics, not rules and game mechanics.
I like to call that (e.g. the bolded part) RAM (Rules As Malice).
It's my opinion that "good rules writing" means that all the reasonable interpretations of what you wrote are okay for play. The rule can be ambiguous or unclear, as long as an honest effort to interpret it doesn't lead someone to a conclusion that would suck at the table. (Ideally, all interpretations aren't merely neutral but actively good for the table. But let's not get greedy.) The responsibility of saying, "well no, it doesn't work like this, even though it might sound that way -- because that would be a garbage fire," rests on the shoulders of the rules writers, not the readers. And they can save themselves the time by just writing the rules better.
I can't prove this gliding thing is bad rules writing, because I haven't experienced it at the table. But it looks like bad rules writing. And it looks SO MUCH like bad rules writing, that I probably never actually will experience it, because I'm not trying to have a bad time when I play D&D, and there's plenty of material I can use which doesn't look like it's going to suck.
I might at some point play with some rules inspired by these rules. You know, a DM fix, or something. But that's not the same thing, now is it?
Thanks!
That interpretation breaks Glide into two different, unrelated abilities. The first you read as a new form of movement, akin to swimming or climbing. You just go down and sideways. The second is immunity to falling damage with a Reaction. The only commonality between those is "movement down". There are dozens of different abilities with stronger ties - yet they remain separate. There has never been a single ability that has two distinct and unrelated effects, to my knowledge, and I wouldn't expect one now.
As for the movement, if any of the movement cost some of your speed, the rules would say so. See any rule that introduces a different type of movement for a character.
The Barbarian:
The Cleric:
The Ranger:
I'm sure there's more you can find if you look. Basically, if Glide was a new form of movement, it would say it gives you a Glide speed equal to your walking speed, or some fixed value. That's the rule standard for new speeds, and you'd see that here if it was the case. All forms of movement either get their own speed, or use an existing speed which the character possesses. And they literally and specifically use the word "speed", which is the mechanical value that determines how much movement that type allows. Without that rule, you have no idea how far the movement can go. The rule isn't here because it's not a new speed. It's falling, and there's already rules for that.
The problem here is that the rule as written is "broken". Probably not from a purely combat-focused standpoint, but it is quite abusable by a creative mind. And it's certainly pushed well past the bounds or reasonable verisimilitude with sane physics. If you read this rule and think it doesn't make good sense, then you've read it right. :D