The 9th level monk ability says they can run along vertical surfaces. ”Along” seems to heavily imply that this is horizontal movement (I.e you are in the same 5ft squares, but your feet are touching the wall.)
I can’t find any sage advice on this, and unless Jeremy Crawford decides to humor me on Twitter, I don’t see any official clarification.
Rule of cool, I’d allow it, and it’s hardly broken. But it seems verboten RAW, or at least vague.
The 9th level monk ability says they can run along vertical surfaces. ”Along” seems to heavily imply that this is horizontal movement
Any citation from game creators, or just your interpretation?
I think in this case, your interpretation is wrong. You say along like it would be similar to parallel in that you have to run along a wall but parallel to the floor in your example of the "same square". However, along is literally defined as "moving in a constant direction", and "extending in a more or less horizontal line on", but because this feature specifically states along Vertical surfaces, you can move any direction on that surface as well. Ultimately though, you need to end your turn on a horizontal surface or you'll fall off the wall.
I think in order to really understand this feature, you have to consider that if you couldnt move up or down, or in any direction your use of this feature would be quite limited. Like, all you could do is run next to a wall, hop on it then run in a straight line parallel to the ground for as many feet as you have movement. But you'd still be only a few feet off the ground. In my game where I am a monk I have no limits on the direction I can move on a wall, and even changing that direction as I see fit, as long as I dont stop on a vertical surface.
Ive been able to run up cliff faces with my normal 65' of movement using action dash and bonus action step of the wind to go 195' in a turn. Imagine if that was limited to parallel to the ground? Super boring.
Okay, in truth, it’s ambiguous. So the next question we ask ourselves is: can you think of a reason to justify not allowing monks to move vertically along surfaces?...
I've always just assumed yes; the tricky thing is that the definition of the word along doesn't strictly require horizontal movement, though I've seen some dictionary definitions include it in brackets (though that also suggests it's not a requirement). In geometric terms you could describe something as moving "along" a planar surface, with no reference at all to how that surface is oriented, and still be clearly defining that movement as occuring anywhere across that plane. When you talk about walking "along the road", there is no requirement that the road doesn't do a loop or corkscrew, as would be the case if you said "upon the road". If WotC intended strictly, or at least generally, horizontal movement then surely they'd have used the word horizontal in the rule to be absolutely clear?
Unfortunately in the absence of any sage advice or answers that I can see, we only have the absence of these itself to go by; as you said in the other thread, it's a commonly held view that vertical movement is included in this feature, and surely WotC would be aware of this usage by now, and correct it if it were wrong? It must have come up in Adventurer's League games by now!
Now, where the feature is interesting is that it doesn't actually tell you that Monks and Monks alone can run along walls, or upon water; it says that they can do so without falling during the move. This seems to suggest that all characters can attempt to do these things, but it's implied that they will fall while doing so, so it's up to the DM how exactly that pans out. I'd probably allow a jump equivalent to be rule of cool'd but beyond that you fall, so into the water if water running, or off the wall if wall running, though in the latter case if horizontal wall running that's only really a problem if there's nothing to land on (as if you fall less than 10 feet and normally round down then you take no fall damage and don't go prone). Though provisions are needed for armour (wall running in full plate armour might be pushing it a bit, even though technically you can still jump normally).
All characters can attempt to move up a vertical surface, and all characters could attempt to do this by running up the surface, but most would fall before they got very far (probably limited by jump height). Also, all Monks are capable of climbing vertical surfaces just like anyone else, and like Rogues can double dash to climb pretty huge distances (67.5 feet by level 9 for your typical 45 foot movement Monk). So mechanically, allowing a Monk to run up a vertical surface really just eliminates the climbing cost, which in most cases just means you save on a dash or two (and a Ki point); where it gets potentially absurd is if you double dash (or triple with Haste) anyway and could potentially scale a 125-170 foot tower in six seconds, but that's not something that comes up a lot, and your DM can always rule against more extreme cases (or put obstacles in the way), as the feature doesn't say you become weightless or incapable of being obstructed.
So yeah, my interpretation is that nothing in the feature really prevents it enough to say no to vertical movement, and WotC have had plenty of time to correct it if you weren't supposed to to run vertically as well.
Of course for my current Monk this is purely academic anyway, as they're an Aarakocra 😄
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Okay, in truth, it’s ambiguous. So the next question we ask ourselves is: can you think of a reason to justify not allowing monks to move vertically along surfaces?...
... Me neither :)
I just look to one movie that shows ninjas running along a vertical surface.
The 9th level monk ability says they can run along vertical surfaces. ”Along” seems to heavily imply that this is horizontal movement
Any citation from game creators, or just your interpretation?
I think in this case, your interpretation is wrong. You say along like it would be similar to parallel in that you have to run along a wall but parallel to the floor in your example of the "same square". However, along is literally defined as "moving in a constant direction", and "extending in a more or less horizontal line on", but because this feature specifically states along Vertical surfaces, you can move any direction on that surface as well. Ultimately though, you need to end your turn on a horizontal surface or you'll fall off the wall.
I think in order to really understand this feature, you have to consider that if you couldnt move up or down, or in any direction your use of this feature would be quite limited. Like, all you could do is run next to a wall, hop on it then run in a straight line parallel to the ground for as many feet as you have movement. But you'd still be only a few feet off the ground. In my game where I am a monk I have no limits on the direction I can move on a wall, and even changing that direction as I see fit, as long as I dont stop on a vertical surface.
Ive been able to run up cliff faces with my normal 65' of movement using action dash and bonus action step of the wind to go 195' in a turn. Imagine if that was limited to parallel to the ground? Super boring.
In the case of ending one's turn on a horizontal surface, the wording "You can move along vertical surfaces and across liquids on your turn without falling during the move." doesnt state you have to, but usually with a monk's high move and the fact they can use dash as both action and bonus action usually means they have covered such distance to be back on horizontal or dry land.
From a DM perspective however I would allow a character whose whole turn was to move, and only move, across such a surface, wouldnt fall/sink as long as they continued to take such action the following turn, but I would not allow it more than two consecutive turns. Now if the monk stops at any point to do an attack, exception to that would be if they were making an Assassin's Creed style attack from below which would take them that last 5 feet to where their victim was just standing, or anything else other than moving to vertical, they fall or need to start swimming.
Along (used as a preposition) according to the Oxford English Dictionary
from one end to or towards the other end of something
Not that Oxford is the only place you can look but based on their definition, Id say that this doesn't prevent you from running up a vertical wall. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the principal historical dictionary of the English language. It's literally their job to determine what words mean. Probably a save definition to go with. And it seems fitting with the source inspiration. Looking at most Kung-fu movies, manga, anime, etc you can find lots of instances where their "monk" style characters can run straight up a wall. I think you are fine allowing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
The wording is ambiguous, but I can't imagine a DM who hasn't seen an old School Kung Fu movie allow for vertical movement (see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon where both forms of movement are used). It's pretty much like having a Climb Speed equal to your movement, which isn't outlandish.. you simple can't end your turn stuck to the wall as if you were climbing.
The wording is ambiguous, but I can't imagine a DM who hasn't seen an old School Kung Fu movie allow for vertical movement (see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon where both forms of movement are used). It's pretty much like having a Climb Speed equal to your movement, which isn't outlandish.. you simple can't end your turn stuck to the wall as if you were climbing.
RAW however doesnt stat that, and even in said movies they are moving for more than 6 seconds, the length of a turn, so there for unless RAW the Monk Class, states that you must end your movement on a flat surface, then as long as you keep moving on your next turn action, then you are not going to fall. This is why as a DM you need to set a limit of how many turns such can happen, as I put in my previous post (Post #9). However considering how fast a monk can move, specially if they use a Dash action, they can travel a great distance along such a surface. The restriction with such is that they cant move and attack, their whole focus until they are back on a flat surface is to move. Now, when it comes to spell casting the same, unless the spell has only a Verbal component, then they are not going to be able to cast such a spell until they are on a flat surface.
unless RAW the Monk Class, states that you must end your movement on a flat surface, then as long as you keep moving on your next turn action, then you are not going to fall.
A move in D&D isn't a sequence of movement over multiple turns, it's the act of using some of your movement, which you can do before, between and after your action and bonus action (or during when doing multiple attacks). The best indicator of this is in the section on Breaking Up Your Move:
You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.
All movement between some other action appears to be considered a single move of however much of your speed you consumed, and no move extends beyond the end of a turn (even if canonically you're still going and will move in your next turn if able).
This combines with the rule itself as Kamakazietom quotes:
The rule itself even specifies "your turn"; no stringing this together between turns, you either end your turn on a normal surface, or you end your turn falling.
This raises an interesting case if you wanted to attack while wall running; it feels like RAW you immediately fall as a result of attempting the attack since that would be the end of a move (regardless of whether you intended to make another move straight after), which I think is probably fair. So if you run up a wall to attack a flying creature near to the wall, then unless perhaps if you grapple it, you're going to fall for your trouble. Still cool though if played right (and Monks do get some fall damage mitigation).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I don’t think it’s vague at all, but I can see why some may question it. But just from a plain reading of it you can move on a vertical surface up, down, left, right, as long as it’s completed during the move.
if you break up your move to attack then you fall. It says during the move (the move up to when you stopped to break it up) not your move (your entire possible move on your turn). And it doesn’t continue on subsequent turns as it says on your turn.
I think people, including myself, can read too much into the exact wording and get hung up on a particular word or phrase. But in general rules tell you what you can do (with any related restrictions) but not what you can’t do.
Along (used as a preposition) according to the Oxford English Dictionary
from one end to or towards the other end of something
Not that Oxford is the only place you can look but based on their definition, Id say that this doesn't prevent you from running up a vertical wall. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the principal historical dictionary of the English language. It's literally their job to determine what words mean. Probably a save definition to go with. And it seems fitting with the source inspiration. Looking at most Kung-fu movies, manga, anime, etc you can find lots of instances where their "monk" style characters can run straight up a wall. I think you are fine allowing it.
End to end suggests horizontal movement, since its not top to bottom. But yeah, its a little vague, and I would feel like a DM is being needlessly overbearing if they do rule its just the lamer "running along a wall, 5 ft off the ground."
I can see how maybe the creative team didn't think much about elevation in combat to begin with. I can really imagine the idea being "oh, the monk will be able to run along the wall to avoid traps on the dungeon floor" and didn't necessarily think about it beyond that or word it too carefully.
Odd. I was just looking under Sources >Source books>Players handbook and monk abilities go right from 7th level to 10th level with no 9th level ability to move on vertical or liquid surfaces
It’s not. But it is an easy mistake to make. And Kronzypantz had a great response, cheers. Moving from one end to or towards the other end of something functions independently of that “something’s” spatial orientation. For example: one end could be on the ground and the other could be 30 ft. Straight up like a climbing wall or a telephone pole.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
The 9th level monk ability says they can run along vertical surfaces. ”Along” seems to heavily imply that this is horizontal movement (I.e you are in the same 5ft squares, but your feet are touching the wall.)
I can’t find any sage advice on this, and unless Jeremy Crawford decides to humor me on Twitter, I don’t see any official clarification.
Rule of cool, I’d allow it, and it’s hardly broken. But it seems verboten RAW, or at least vague.
Thoughts?
Yes, they can.
Any citation from game creators, or just your interpretation?
I think in this case, your interpretation is wrong. You say along like it would be similar to parallel in that you have to run along a wall but parallel to the floor in your example of the "same square". However, along is literally defined as "moving in a constant direction", and "extending in a more or less horizontal line on", but because this feature specifically states along Vertical surfaces, you can move any direction on that surface as well. Ultimately though, you need to end your turn on a horizontal surface or you'll fall off the wall.
I think in order to really understand this feature, you have to consider that if you couldnt move up or down, or in any direction your use of this feature would be quite limited. Like, all you could do is run next to a wall, hop on it then run in a straight line parallel to the ground for as many feet as you have movement. But you'd still be only a few feet off the ground. In my game where I am a monk I have no limits on the direction I can move on a wall, and even changing that direction as I see fit, as long as I dont stop on a vertical surface.
Ive been able to run up cliff faces with my normal 65' of movement using action dash and bonus action step of the wind to go 195' in a turn. Imagine if that was limited to parallel to the ground? Super boring.
Yes.
Okay, in truth, it’s ambiguous. So the next question we ask ourselves is: can you think of a reason to justify not allowing monks to move vertically along surfaces?...
... Me neither :)
Thoughts: vague, not verboten. Nothing more to offer than thoughts, though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I've always just assumed yes; the tricky thing is that the definition of the word along doesn't strictly require horizontal movement, though I've seen some dictionary definitions include it in brackets (though that also suggests it's not a requirement). In geometric terms you could describe something as moving "along" a planar surface, with no reference at all to how that surface is oriented, and still be clearly defining that movement as occuring anywhere across that plane. When you talk about walking "along the road", there is no requirement that the road doesn't do a loop or corkscrew, as would be the case if you said "upon the road". If WotC intended strictly, or at least generally, horizontal movement then surely they'd have used the word horizontal in the rule to be absolutely clear?
Unfortunately in the absence of any sage advice or answers that I can see, we only have the absence of these itself to go by; as you said in the other thread, it's a commonly held view that vertical movement is included in this feature, and surely WotC would be aware of this usage by now, and correct it if it were wrong? It must have come up in Adventurer's League games by now!
Now, where the feature is interesting is that it doesn't actually tell you that Monks and Monks alone can run along walls, or upon water; it says that they can do so without falling during the move. This seems to suggest that all characters can attempt to do these things, but it's implied that they will fall while doing so, so it's up to the DM how exactly that pans out. I'd probably allow a jump equivalent to be rule of cool'd but beyond that you fall, so into the water if water running, or off the wall if wall running, though in the latter case if horizontal wall running that's only really a problem if there's nothing to land on (as if you fall less than 10 feet and normally round down then you take no fall damage and don't go prone). Though provisions are needed for armour (wall running in full plate armour might be pushing it a bit, even though technically you can still jump normally).
All characters can attempt to move up a vertical surface, and all characters could attempt to do this by running up the surface, but most would fall before they got very far (probably limited by jump height). Also, all Monks are capable of climbing vertical surfaces just like anyone else, and like Rogues can double dash to climb pretty huge distances (67.5 feet by level 9 for your typical 45 foot movement Monk). So mechanically, allowing a Monk to run up a vertical surface really just eliminates the climbing cost, which in most cases just means you save on a dash or two (and a Ki point); where it gets potentially absurd is if you double dash (or triple with Haste) anyway and could potentially scale a 125-170 foot tower in six seconds, but that's not something that comes up a lot, and your DM can always rule against more extreme cases (or put obstacles in the way), as the feature doesn't say you become weightless or incapable of being obstructed.
So yeah, my interpretation is that nothing in the feature really prevents it enough to say no to vertical movement, and WotC have had plenty of time to correct it if you weren't supposed to to run vertically as well.
Of course for my current Monk this is purely academic anyway, as they're an Aarakocra 😄
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I just look to one movie that shows ninjas running along a vertical surface.
GI Joe Retribution
In the case of ending one's turn on a horizontal surface, the wording "You can move along vertical surfaces and across liquids on your turn without falling during the move." doesnt state you have to, but usually with a monk's high move and the fact they can use dash as both action and bonus action usually means they have covered such distance to be back on horizontal or dry land.
From a DM perspective however I would allow a character whose whole turn was to move, and only move, across such a surface, wouldnt fall/sink as long as they continued to take such action the following turn, but I would not allow it more than two consecutive turns. Now if the monk stops at any point to do an attack, exception to that would be if they were making an Assassin's Creed style attack from below which would take them that last 5 feet to where their victim was just standing, or anything else other than moving to vertical, they fall or need to start swimming.
Along (used as a preposition) according to the Oxford English Dictionary
Not that Oxford is the only place you can look but based on their definition, Id say that this doesn't prevent you from running up a vertical wall. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the principal historical dictionary of the English language. It's literally their job to determine what words mean. Probably a save definition to go with. And it seems fitting with the source inspiration. Looking at most Kung-fu movies, manga, anime, etc you can find lots of instances where their "monk" style characters can run straight up a wall. I think you are fine allowing it.
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPmyTI0tZ6nM-bzY0IG3ww
The wording is ambiguous, but I can't imagine a DM who hasn't seen an old School Kung Fu movie allow for vertical movement (see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon where both forms of movement are used). It's pretty much like having a Climb Speed equal to your movement, which isn't outlandish.. you simple can't end your turn stuck to the wall as if you were climbing.
RAW however doesnt stat that, and even in said movies they are moving for more than 6 seconds, the length of a turn, so there for unless RAW the Monk Class, states that you must end your movement on a flat surface, then as long as you keep moving on your next turn action, then you are not going to fall. This is why as a DM you need to set a limit of how many turns such can happen, as I put in my previous post (Post #9). However considering how fast a monk can move, specially if they use a Dash action, they can travel a great distance along such a surface. The restriction with such is that they cant move and attack, their whole focus until they are back on a flat surface is to move. Now, when it comes to spell casting the same, unless the spell has only a Verbal component, then they are not going to be able to cast such a spell until they are on a flat surface.
Misread Edit to delete comment
A move in D&D isn't a sequence of movement over multiple turns, it's the act of using some of your movement, which you can do before, between and after your action and bonus action (or during when doing multiple attacks). The best indicator of this is in the section on Breaking Up Your Move:
All movement between some other action appears to be considered a single move of however much of your speed you consumed, and no move extends beyond the end of a turn (even if canonically you're still going and will move in your next turn if able).
This combines with the rule itself as Kamakazietom quotes:
The rule itself even specifies "your turn"; no stringing this together between turns, you either end your turn on a normal surface, or you end your turn falling.
This raises an interesting case if you wanted to attack while wall running; it feels like RAW you immediately fall as a result of attempting the attack since that would be the end of a move (regardless of whether you intended to make another move straight after), which I think is probably fair. So if you run up a wall to attack a flying creature near to the wall, then unless perhaps if you grapple it, you're going to fall for your trouble. Still cool though if played right (and Monks do get some fall damage mitigation).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I don’t think it’s vague at all, but I can see why some may question it. But just from a plain reading of it you can move on a vertical surface up, down, left, right, as long as it’s completed during the move.
if you break up your move to attack then you fall. It says during the move (the move up to when you stopped to break it up) not your move (your entire possible move on your turn). And it doesn’t continue on subsequent turns as it says on your turn.
I think people, including myself, can read too much into the exact wording and get hung up on a particular word or phrase. But in general rules tell you what you can do (with any related restrictions) but not what you can’t do.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Actually it doesn't mention during your move, but during your turn.
End to end suggests horizontal movement, since its not top to bottom. But yeah, its a little vague, and I would feel like a DM is being needlessly overbearing if they do rule its just the lamer "running along a wall, 5 ft off the ground."
I can see how maybe the creative team didn't think much about elevation in combat to begin with. I can really imagine the idea being "oh, the monk will be able to run along the wall to avoid traps on the dungeon floor" and didn't necessarily think about it beyond that or word it too carefully.
Odd. I was just looking under Sources >Source books>Players handbook and monk abilities go right from 7th level to 10th level with no 9th level ability to move on vertical or liquid surfaces
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Why is this true?
It’s not. But it is an easy mistake to make. And Kronzypantz had a great response, cheers. Moving from one end to or towards the other end of something functions independently of that “something’s” spatial orientation. For example: one end could be on the ground and the other could be 30 ft. Straight up like a climbing wall or a telephone pole.
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPmyTI0tZ6nM-bzY0IG3ww