So, Winged Boots give me 'a fly speed equal to my walking speed'. How does this work in practical terms? Let's say I'm a rogue with a walking speed of thirty feet- I can move up to ninety feet a round with a move, dash, and bonus action dash. So is my fly speed thirty feet, or ninety? Do I have to do sixty feet on the ground and fly the last bit? And what happens if I end my turn in the air- do I hover? Or do I gradually descend to the space below me because I've used my fly speed for the round?
Your fly speed is 30 feet if your walking speed is 30 ft. You can dash with a fly speed just like you can with a walking speed, so you can fly 90 feet in one round in this example.
Yes, you functionally hover - you stay in place in the grid cube you're in during other people's turns. You're not actually hovering, since winged boots don't grant that. The definition of hovering in 5E is that when you're knocked prone you stay aloft, so if you're knocked prone in the boots, you'll fall.
You will gradually descend when you use up the current bout of flying. If I were the GM, I would only let you decide to end a bout of flying on your turn or during a readied action.
Yes, you functionally hover - you stay in place in the grid cube you're in during other people's turns. You're not actually hovering, since winged boots don't grant that. The definition of hovering in 5E is that when you're knocked prone you stay aloft, so if you're knocked prone in the boots, you'll fall.
I will have to disagree with this statement. Since the source of flight is from a magical source rather than something like physical wings, I would argue that they would not plummet from being knocked prone.
Yes, you functionally hover - you stay in place in the grid cube you're in during other people's turns. You're not actually hovering, since winged boots don't grant that. The definition of hovering in 5E is that when you're knocked prone you stay aloft, so if you're knocked prone in the boots, you'll fall.
I will have to disagree with this statement. Since the source of flight is from a magical source rather than something like physical wings, I would argue that they would not plummet from being knocked prone.
Take it up with the boots, which don't grant hover. I'm not house ruling that they don't, the text is genuinely absent.
Yes, you functionally hover - you stay in place in the grid cube you're in during other people's turns. You're not actually hovering, since winged boots don't grant that. The definition of hovering in 5E is that when you're knocked prone you stay aloft, so if you're knocked prone in the boots, you'll fall.
I will have to disagree with this statement. Since the source of flight is from a magical source rather than something like physical wings, I would argue that they would not plummet from being knocked prone.
Take it up with the boots, which don't grant hover. I'm not house ruling that they don't, the text is genuinely absent.
Here's what you're missing: "If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell."
Follow-up on this because It's genuinely interesting (and I already rule that they don't) and wanted to present the analysis I settled on. There's a couple arguments against adjudicating in the manner suggested, but to directly address the RAW, there's already two counters within the text, it just requires further analysis rather than just a close reading of a mere excerpt.
1) A spell originating from a caster (or item) that targets or directly affects a creature such that the creature is the direct object of the magical effect is drastically different from merely benefitting from an enchanted item whose magical effect is only contained to the item and does not impart such an effect on anything/anyone other than itself, i.e., the winged boots are doing the flying, not the creature wearing them (similar to a no-attunement-required broom of flying, except the creature opting for a broom exchanges the risk of being separated from the broom in-flight to keep an attunement slot open). We can see correlative elements of this specific matter throughout the language and mechanics defined by RAW (as you all have laid out wonderfully already, thanks!), but rather than only try to speculate from a finite excerpt that most narrowly addresses the issue, consider other analogous facets such as correlative elements throughout the language and mechanics defined by RAW or how the substantial elements of this issue (e.g., flying, hovering, when creatures are affected by magical effects or incidental beneficiaries, etc.) interact throughout the course of gameplay in other scenarios.
The description of Winged Boots uses plain language, "[...] You can use the boots to fly [...]" Whereas the description of an Amethyst Lodestone (very rare) is explicitly different, "For the duration, you gain a flying speed." Considering how both these items (when active) mechanically allow a creature to fly, the magical impact of the item manifests the magical effects on two entirely different subjects (or, who's doing the flyin'). If I use planes to fly, planes don't grant me the ability to fly without them, and they merely allow me to travel within limitations that my flying vehicle can travel. The boots allow the creature to move differently, which is represented by movement types in 5e, and their travel limitations, which is represented by speed, in this case is explicit in the description: "[...] equal to your walking speed [...]." This means that the flying speed of the boots are precluded by the creature's walking speed. If walking speed 0 then flying speed 0.
2)Winged Boots can fly if you attune to them and wear them. The creature still cannot. (Please avoid attempting to counter by citing the first sentence of the item description, "While you wear these boots, you have a flying speed equal to your walking speed [...]" because that merely determines speed as a quantitative mechanic, 30 ft., as explained above.).
Referring back to the RAW you found that addresses the matter, "[...] the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic[...]" It's important to remember the boots grant only a flying speed, and we know flying and hovering are two different types of movement. IMO Since flying is nothovering the creature will fall. The boots may flyfor you, but as the item is defined, they couldn't even hover on their own if they tried. Has anyone seen what happens when an airplane stalls? Perhaps the language should read, "[...] unless they have or have been granted the ability to hover or are being directly affected by a magical effect, such as the fly, reverse gravity, and levitate spells (even a floating disc technically works in this language)."
A general issue in adjudicating that the boots would prevent a creature's fall if their speed is reduced to 0 is simply because it's rated as an uncommon, attunement item. At low levels, granting a creature the ability to prevent themselves from falling when their speed is reduced to 0 while flying leaves very few options to bring that creature back to the ground (think about how your level 4 party would responds to even a moderately challenged monster like that who pops shits from range while flying outside the party's effective combat range - they'd hate you, and your martial melees will never forget).
The logic is just inconsistent with RAW, existing gear/items/spells, and gameplay, and it also renders a pretty distinctly defined term and mechanic in RAW, hover, almost entirely arbitrary when it most assuredly is not. This is why I can also easily foresee further conflictions throughout gameplay if adjudicated in the manner suggested. Ultimately, I would classify this as an ambiguity within RAW for sure; however, it's not misleading because an actual analysis can still provide the "best" answer (I didn't say "right").
P.S. Yes, I have a J.D., and no, but I 100% agree, "Conflict of Laws" classes should spend a week or two on D&D.
Follow-up on this because It's genuinely interesting (and I already rule that they don't) and wanted to present the analysis I settled on. There's a couple arguments against adjudicating in the manner suggested, but to directly address the RAW, there's already two counters within the text, it just requires further analysis rather than just a close reading of a mere excerpt.
Jeremy Crawford has stated RAW is always open to interpretation by DMs, they are guidelines for how things should happen, but not a rigid ruleset. Let's see where you go with it.
1) A spell originating from a caster (or item) that targets or directly affects a creature such that the creature is the direct object of the magical effect is drastically different from merely benefitting from an enchanted item whose magical effect is only contained to the item and does not impart such an effect on anything/anyone other than itself, i.e., the winged boots are doing the flying, not the creature wearing them (similar to a no-attunement-required broom of flying, except the creature opting for a broom exchanges the risk of being separated from the broom in-flight to keep an attunement slot open). We can see correlative elements of this specific matter throughout the language and mechanics defined by RAW (as you all have laid out wonderfully already, thanks!), but rather than only try to speculate from a finite excerpt that most narrowly addresses the issue, consider other analogous facets such as correlative elements throughout the language and mechanics defined by RAW or how the substantial elements of this issue (e.g., flying, hovering, when creatures are affected by magical effects or incidental beneficiaries, etc.) interact throughout the course of gameplay in other scenarios.
Items do impart their magical effects to a wearer though, this is described explicitly through the attunement process. Items like the broom of flying work with a word of command and otherwise are primed but not in-use. Items that require attunement specifically are non-magical until you complete your attunement, and then you are innately tied to that item. This link with the item for game purposes is the item imparting it's magical properties to you.
The description of Winged Boots uses plain language, "[...] You can use the boots to fly [...]" Whereas the description of an Amethyst Lodestone (very rare) is explicitly different, "For the duration, you gain a flying speed." Considering how both these items (when active) mechanically allow a creature to fly, the magical impact of the item manifests the magical effects on two entirely different subjects (or, who's doing the flyin'). If I use planes to fly, planes don't grant me the ability to fly without them, and they merely allow me to travel within limitations that my flying vehicle can travel. The boots allow the creature to move differently, which is represented by movement types in 5e, and their travel limitations, which is represented by speed, in this case is explicit in the description: "[...] equal to your walking speed [...]." This means that the flying speed of the boots are precluded by the creature's walking speed. If walking speed 0 then flying speed 0.
Couple of points here: Firstly, the lodestone is an expended charge Flight ability which lasts the duration (10 minutes). Compared to Winged Boots, you merely will it on and off and has a total flight duration per day of 4 hours. Comparing it to airplanes is pretty disingenuous as they require thrust over their wings (and actual physics) to work properly. You CAN turn your winged boots off mid-flight and turn them back on, and if they are off, you will fall. Each willful use of turning them "on" expends a minimum of 1 minute from the total 240 minutes you have per day.
Walking speed is the generic label for how many squares your character can move. Tons of abilities modify your walking speed, including dashing. This is backed up by the PHB here: Basic Rules for Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) Fifth Edition (5e) - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com) which notes the only 2 references to movement include walking speed and flying speed. An item making your flying speed equal your walking speed is perfectly understood RAW. If you increase your walking speed (such as with the Haste spell) then your walking speed of 30 goes to 60, and your flying speed goes from 30 to 60 as well.
2)Winged Boots can fly if you attune to them and wear them. The creature still cannot. (Please avoid attempting to counter by citing the first sentence of the item description, "While you wear these boots, you have a flying speed equal to your walking speed [...]" because that merely determines speed as a quantitative mechanic, 30 ft., as explained above.).
I don't know what you mean by "the creature still cannot." As mentioned already, attuning to an item links the person wearing the item to its magical properties. This is clearly stated RAW, as not attuning to Winged Boots for example will not let you fly, and you can be attuned to them and still NOT fly if you so choose. The choice is the wearer of the item, not the item, regardless of how you interpret this. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Referring back to the RAW you found that addresses the matter, "[...] the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic[...]" It's important to remember the boots grant only a flying speed, and we know flying and hovering are two different types of movement. IMO Since flying is nothovering the creature will fall. The boots may flyfor you, but as the item is defined, they couldn't even hover on their own if they tried. Has anyone seen what happens when an airplane stalls? Perhaps the language should read, "[...] unless they have or have been granted the ability to hover or are being directly affected by a magical effect, such as the fly, reverse gravity, and levitate spells (even a floating disc technically works in this language)."
It is worded this way (and explicitly calls out "unless held aloft by magic") because it's important to delineate between flying granted by non-magical means (such as wildshaped into a bird) and otherwise. A bird knocked prone will fall. A dragon knocked prone will hover because it specifically calls out it hovers, even though it's flight isn't magical. This explicit notation is to intuitively draw a difference between non-magical forms of flight and the expected result if you try to knock them prone. Any flight granted by magic or magical abilities is also covered - you don't fall. It's clearly stated. Winged Boots is magical in nature, and the flight granted by it means you would not lose flying.
A general issue in adjudicating that the boots would prevent a creature's fall if their speed is reduced to 0 is simply because it's rated as an uncommon, attunement item. At low levels, granting a creature the ability to prevent themselves from falling when their speed is reduced to 0 while flying leaves very few options to bring that creature back to the ground (think about how your level 4 party would responds to even a moderately challenged monster like that who pops shits from range while flying outside the party's effective combat range - they'd hate you, and your martial melees will never forget).
Nope, I laid out pretty succinctly why some non-magical forms of flight have the hover trait (and in certain steampunk settings, I know certain magical artifacts grant hovering as well as flight.) Unless it's specified to not work a certain way, you can go by how it's worded to know how it should work. Does Winged Boots grant magical flight? Yes. Is that something prone affects? No.
The logic is just inconsistent with RAW, existing gear/items/spells, and gameplay, and it also renders a pretty distinctly defined term and mechanic in RAW, hover, almost entirely arbitrary when it most assuredly is not. This is why I can also easily foresee further conflictions throughout gameplay if adjudicated in the manner suggested. Ultimately, I would classify this as an ambiguity within RAW for sure; however, it's not misleading because an actual analysis can still provide the "best" answer (I didn't say "right").
P.S. Yes, I have a J.D., and no, but I 100% agree, "Conflict of Laws" classes should spend a week or two on D&D.
Hover is not arbitrary, it's granted to certain creatures and objects where it would make sense that they would not immediately plummet to the ground if knocked prone. There is no official PHB ruling for hover though, it's merely called out as a status that things can have while flying.
For example, knocking a dragon prone won't make it plummet 200ft to the ground, because it can hover.
That same example, knocking a person with Winged Boots prone won't make it plummet to the ground, because it's granted flight magically.
Hope your juris doctorate serves you better in real world cases.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, Winged Boots give me 'a fly speed equal to my walking speed'. How does this work in practical terms? Let's say I'm a rogue with a walking speed of thirty feet- I can move up to ninety feet a round with a move, dash, and bonus action dash. So is my fly speed thirty feet, or ninety? Do I have to do sixty feet on the ground and fly the last bit? And what happens if I end my turn in the air- do I hover? Or do I gradually descend to the space below me because I've used my fly speed for the round?
I will have to disagree with this statement. Since the source of flight is from a magical source rather than something like physical wings, I would argue that they would not plummet from being knocked prone.
Take it up with the boots, which don't grant hover. I'm not house ruling that they don't, the text is genuinely absent.
Here's what you're missing: "If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell."
Ah, good call, I was indeed missing that. So yes, all magic items grant hover without needing to say they do.
Thanks folks, this has been helpful 😁
Follow-up on this because It's genuinely interesting (and I already rule that they don't) and wanted to present the analysis I settled on. There's a couple arguments against adjudicating in the manner suggested, but to directly address the RAW, there's already two counters within the text, it just requires further analysis rather than just a close reading of a mere excerpt.
1) A spell originating from a caster (or item) that targets or directly affects a creature such that the creature is the direct object of the magical effect is drastically different from merely benefitting from an enchanted item whose magical effect is only contained to the item and does not impart such an effect on anything/anyone other than itself, i.e., the winged boots are doing the flying, not the creature wearing them (similar to a no-attunement-required broom of flying, except the creature opting for a broom exchanges the risk of being separated from the broom in-flight to keep an attunement slot open). We can see correlative elements of this specific matter throughout the language and mechanics defined by RAW (as you all have laid out wonderfully already, thanks!), but rather than only try to speculate from a finite excerpt that most narrowly addresses the issue, consider other analogous facets such as correlative elements throughout the language and mechanics defined by RAW or how the substantial elements of this issue (e.g., flying, hovering, when creatures are affected by magical effects or incidental beneficiaries, etc.) interact throughout the course of gameplay in other scenarios.
The description of Winged Boots uses plain language, "[...] You can use the boots to fly [...]" Whereas the description of an Amethyst Lodestone (very rare) is explicitly different, "For the duration, you gain a flying speed." Considering how both these items (when active) mechanically allow a creature to fly, the magical impact of the item manifests the magical effects on two entirely different subjects (or, who's doing the flyin'). If I use planes to fly, planes don't grant me the ability to fly without them, and they merely allow me to travel within limitations that my flying vehicle can travel. The boots allow the creature to move differently, which is represented by movement types in 5e, and their travel limitations, which is represented by speed, in this case is explicit in the description: "[...] equal to your walking speed [...]." This means that the flying speed of the boots are precluded by the creature's walking speed. If walking speed 0 then flying speed 0.
2)Winged Boots can fly if you attune to them and wear them. The creature still cannot. (Please avoid attempting to counter by citing the first sentence of the item description, "While you wear these boots, you have a flying speed equal to your walking speed [...]" because that merely determines speed as a quantitative mechanic, 30 ft., as explained above.).
Referring back to the RAW you found that addresses the matter, "[...] the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic [...]" It's important to remember the boots grant only a flying speed, and we know flying and hovering are two different types of movement. IMO Since flying is not hovering the creature will fall. The boots may fly for you, but as the item is defined, they couldn't even hover on their own if they tried. Has anyone seen what happens when an airplane stalls? Perhaps the language should read, "[...] unless they have or have been granted the ability to hover or are being directly affected by a magical effect, such as the fly, reverse gravity, and levitate spells (even a floating disc technically works in this language)."
A general issue in adjudicating that the boots would prevent a creature's fall if their speed is reduced to 0 is simply because it's rated as an uncommon, attunement item. At low levels, granting a creature the ability to prevent themselves from falling when their speed is reduced to 0 while flying leaves very few options to bring that creature back to the ground (think about how your level 4 party would responds to even a moderately challenged monster like that who pops shits from range while flying outside the party's effective combat range - they'd hate you, and your martial melees will never forget).
The logic is just inconsistent with RAW, existing gear/items/spells, and gameplay, and it also renders a pretty distinctly defined term and mechanic in RAW, hover, almost entirely arbitrary when it most assuredly is not. This is why I can also easily foresee further conflictions throughout gameplay if adjudicated in the manner suggested. Ultimately, I would classify this as an ambiguity within RAW for sure; however, it's not misleading because an actual analysis can still provide the "best" answer (I didn't say "right").
P.S. Yes, I have a J.D., and no, but I 100% agree, "Conflict of Laws" classes should spend a week or two on D&D.
Items do impart their magical effects to a wearer though, this is described explicitly through the attunement process. Items like the broom of flying work with a word of command and otherwise are primed but not in-use. Items that require attunement specifically are non-magical until you complete your attunement, and then you are innately tied to that item. This link with the item for game purposes is the item imparting it's magical properties to you.
Couple of points here: Firstly, the lodestone is an expended charge Flight ability which lasts the duration (10 minutes). Compared to Winged Boots, you merely will it on and off and has a total flight duration per day of 4 hours. Comparing it to airplanes is pretty disingenuous as they require thrust over their wings (and actual physics) to work properly. You CAN turn your winged boots off mid-flight and turn them back on, and if they are off, you will fall. Each willful use of turning them "on" expends a minimum of 1 minute from the total 240 minutes you have per day.
Walking speed is the generic label for how many squares your character can move. Tons of abilities modify your walking speed, including dashing. This is backed up by the PHB here: Basic Rules for Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) Fifth Edition (5e) - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com) which notes the only 2 references to movement include walking speed and flying speed. An item making your flying speed equal your walking speed is perfectly understood RAW. If you increase your walking speed (such as with the Haste spell) then your walking speed of 30 goes to 60, and your flying speed goes from 30 to 60 as well.
I don't know what you mean by "the creature still cannot." As mentioned already, attuning to an item links the person wearing the item to its magical properties. This is clearly stated RAW, as not attuning to Winged Boots for example will not let you fly, and you can be attuned to them and still NOT fly if you so choose. The choice is the wearer of the item, not the item, regardless of how you interpret this. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
It is worded this way (and explicitly calls out "unless held aloft by magic") because it's important to delineate between flying granted by non-magical means (such as wildshaped into a bird) and otherwise. A bird knocked prone will fall. A dragon knocked prone will hover because it specifically calls out it hovers, even though it's flight isn't magical. This explicit notation is to intuitively draw a difference between non-magical forms of flight and the expected result if you try to knock them prone. Any flight granted by magic or magical abilities is also covered - you don't fall. It's clearly stated. Winged Boots is magical in nature, and the flight granted by it means you would not lose flying.
Nope, I laid out pretty succinctly why some non-magical forms of flight have the hover trait (and in certain steampunk settings, I know certain magical artifacts grant hovering as well as flight.) Unless it's specified to not work a certain way, you can go by how it's worded to know how it should work. Does Winged Boots grant magical flight? Yes. Is that something prone affects? No.
Hover is not arbitrary, it's granted to certain creatures and objects where it would make sense that they would not immediately plummet to the ground if knocked prone. There is no official PHB ruling for hover though, it's merely called out as a status that things can have while flying.
For example, knocking a dragon prone won't make it plummet 200ft to the ground, because it can hover.
That same example, knocking a person with Winged Boots prone won't make it plummet to the ground, because it's granted flight magically.
Hope your juris doctorate serves you better in real world cases.