Some Teleportation and Forced Movement Questions

69 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hey everyone, just had a few questions about powers that teleport an enemy.

1. Is it conidered forced movement? In the PHB, its not listed as such, but it would sort of make sense if it were.

2. Can you teleport a monster vertically? This is linked to the forced movement question. If it is forced movement, then obviously no, but if it isn't, is there anything to prevent you from teleporting a monster vertically and having it take falling damage?

3. Can you teleport a target into a hazardous area, specifically over a cliff? Once again this ties into the first question, but gets more tricky. If teleportation is forced movement, then you could tchnically teleport them over a cliff and they would get a save to catch the edge and fall prone. But what if you teleport them 5 squares over the edge? Do they magically appear at the edge, prone in a square?

I'd appreciate any references to the appropriate rules, as I can't seem to really find the answers in the PHB.
Thank you for your responses, I appreciate the help.
1. No
2. Yes, unless the teleport power says otherwise.
3. Yes, some developers have said that they are going to try to incorperate a saving throw into a rules update (said 4-5 months ago)... there has yet to be any update.
Hey everyone, just had a few questions about powers that teleport an enemy.

1. Is it conidered forced movement? In the PHB, its not listed as such, but it would sort of make sense if it were.

You kind of answered your own question there. If it is not listed as forced movement then it is not.

2. Can you teleport a monster vertically? This is linked to the forced movement question. If it is forced movement, then obviously no, but if it isn't, is there anything to prevent you from teleporting a monster vertically and having it take falling damage?

You can, but I personally wouldn't. I don't believe it is RAI. YMMV

3. Can you teleport a target into a hazardous area, specifically over a cliff? Once again this ties into the first question, but gets more tricky. If teleportation is forced movement, then you could tchnically teleport them over a cliff and they would get a save to catch the edge and fall prone. But what if you teleport them 5 squares over the edge? Do they magically appear at the edge, prone in a square?

I'd appreciate any references to the appropriate rules, as I can't seem to really find the answers in the PHB.
Thank you for your responses, I appreciate the help.


You can. I don't believe they would get a save, but I remember reading somewhere that the Devs may change that.
www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...


Q: Will there be an update for forced teleportation off cliffs, etc.?
A: Yes, forced teleportation will function as other forced movement (providing a saving throw before teleporting a creature off that cliff).
From the forum FAQ (if desired):
'Can you teleport someone into the air? Strictly by the current rules, you can teleport someone vertically and there is no saving throw (discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). However, some DM's have their own ruling on this, and some authors have recommended allowing a saving throw to grab a nearby ledge after being teleported (Draconomicon p.223). Also, WotC has stated (here) that there will be an update for this: "forced teleportation will function as other forced movement (providing a saving throw before teleporting a creature off that cliff)".'
(1) for some reason, teleportation is (a) forced and (b) movement, but not (c) forced movement. The distinction rarely matters, though.

(2) despite vehement claims to the contrary, the rules nowhere specify or allow vertical teleportation. Of course, they don't deny it either; this is one of the most Hotly Debated Topics for a reason. And of course, people are always eager to exclaim that "my opinion is RAW and your opinion is only a houserule".

(3) yes, you can definitely teleport people into a fire or off a cliff. Opinions differ as to whether or not it should grant a saving throw. If I understand Saric's link correctly, then currently RAW says you don't, but future errata will give a saving throw.



(2) despite vehement claims to the contrary, the rules nowhere specify or allow vertical teleportation. Of course, they don't deny it either; this is one of the most Hotly Debated Topics for a reason. And of course, people are always eager to exclaim that "my opinion is RAW and your opinion is only a houserule".



If you cannot currently teleport someone in the air, then you cannot currently target any creature in the air (or below you, for that matter). Those flying enemies just got worse.

Apparantly, some updates are coming out today... let's see what happens to teleportation.

Edit:

Speak of the devil. From today's update:

Teleportation
Page 286: Replace the text for the Destination entry
and the Immobilized entry. This change addresses
what happens when a creature is forced to teleport,
and it clarifies that the Immobilized entry includes
restrained as well.
TELEPORTATION
! Destination: Your destination must be a space
you can occupy without squeezing. If arriving in
the destination space would cause the target to fall
or if that space is hindering terrain, the target can
make a saving throw. On a save, the teleportation is
negated.
! Immobilized or Restrained: Being immobilized or
restrained doesn’t prevent a target from teleporting.
If a target teleports away from a physical restraint, a
monster’s grasp, or some other immobilizing effect
that is located in a specific space, the target is no
longer immobilized or restrained. Otherwise, the
target teleports but is still immobilized or restrained
when it reaches the destination space.

Apparantly, some updates are coming out today... let's see what happens to teleportation.

Edit:

Speak of the devil. From today's update:



Oh, that's timely. Okay, that does end all future debate, methinks.

Is official?

IS OFFICIAL!
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
Is official?

IS OFFICIAL!


Heh. Some people in another thread on the forum disagree anyway. So I'm sure we'll have a repeat of the debates next week because hey, what are forums for?

You know, it would help if the designers were to outright state that vertical distances are treated in the same way as horizontal ones. On the one hand, it sounds like a reasonable assumption. On the other hand, it leads to a variety of consequences that are carefully avoided in the rulebooks and by custserv. For instance, is a human one square tall, or two? How about a dwarf, or a goliath? It would seem that the official answer remains "we don't want to deal with it, you figure it out".

You know, it would help if the designers were to outright state that vertical distances are treated in the same way as horizontal ones.



community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

There you go :p

There you go :p


Isn't that guy amazing? He answered a question in five minutes that the rest of WOTC had been avoiding for a year and a half. I'm impressed.

(2) despite vehement claims to the contrary, the rules nowhere specify or allow vertical teleportation. Of course, they don't deny it either;

They DO deny it, however only for specific single powers, thus making this case the exception that needs to be mentioned and the absence of this exception the norm. Now if there would also be powers that specifically allow it you would have a point, but there are none at all.
Isn't that guy amazing? He answered a question in five minutes that the rest of WOTC had been avoiding for a year and a half. I'm impressed.

Barring  some people just refusing to accept it, WotC answered the question the moment the first teleportation power with a special restriction of this specific power not being able to do that was released.

They DO deny it, however only for specific single powers, thus making this case the exception that needs to be mentioned and the absence of this exception the norm.




Also known as the original meaning of "the exception that proves the rule."

The more you know.
*rainbow*  *star*
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
The forum FAQ for this issue has just been updated:
"Can you teleport someone into the air? Yes, but they get a saving throw. The game editors have stated "we don't say you can't teleport into midair, therefore you can" and the 1/19/2010 update has added: "If arriving in the destination space would cause the target to fall or if that space is hindering terrain, the target can make a saving throw. On a save, the teleportation is negated."

Also known as the original meaning of "the exception that proves the rule."

The more you know.
*rainbow*  *star*




The phrase "An exception proveth the rule" is meant in the context of "An exception tests the rule". That's what the word 'prove' used to mean (as in 'the proof is in the pudding' and 'proving grounds').

So the phrase actually means that any exception to a rule challenges its' status as a rule. It may be more of a guideline.

The more you know.
*rainbow*  *star*

EDIT: Also, what the h*** happened to my post count? It's out by a magnitude of 10. =/ sigh
Chandrak's awesome solutions to the 5-minute workday 'problem'
97183719 wrote:
Seeing as there is a disconnect between balance (quantifiable) and fun, (subjective and personal) discussing fun in a thread about balance because you find one system more enjoyable than another is as helpful as discussing religion in a thread about architectural engineering because you think cathedrals look prettier than outhouses.

Also known as the original meaning of "the exception that proves the rule."

The more you know.
*rainbow*  *star*




The phrase "An exception proveth the rule" is meant in the context of "An exception tests the rule". That's what the word 'prove' used to mean (as in 'the proof is in the pudding' and 'proving grounds').

So the phrase actually means that any exception to a rule challenges its' status as a rule. It may be more of a guideline.

The more you know.
*rainbow*  *star*

EDIT: Also, what the h*** happened to my post count? It's out by a magnitude of 10. =/ sigh


It's a commonly misused phrase, but Manion had it right.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_pro...

"The exception proves the rule" means that the existence of an exception shows the rule exists; there wouldn't be an exception otherwise.

It's a commonly misused phrase, but Manion had it right.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_pro...

"The exception proves the rule" means that the existence of an exception shows the rule exists; there wouldn't be an exception otherwise.


Huh, quite right. I shall alert the masses. Tongue out

Incidentally, I like some of the examples in the misuse section of the page.

EDIT: Also, the meaning I was speaking of is in the Scientific Sense section. It is interesting to know about the other uses of the phrase, though.
Chandrak's awesome solutions to the 5-minute workday 'problem'
97183719 wrote:
Seeing as there is a disconnect between balance (quantifiable) and fun, (subjective and personal) discussing fun in a thread about balance because you find one system more enjoyable than another is as helpful as discussing religion in a thread about architectural engineering because you think cathedrals look prettier than outhouses.
They DO deny it, however only for specific single powers, thus making this case the exception that needs to be mentioned and the absence of this exception the norm.



Well, if you put it that way...

Dimension Door (wizard 6 utility power) lets you teleport, and specificially states that you cannot take somebody else with you.

That is an exception. It wouldn't be necessary to state that if it were the normal case. Therefore, every other teleport power does allow you to take other characters along.

QED.


Well, if you put it that way...

Dimension Door (wizard 6 utility power) lets you teleport, and specificially states that you cannot take somebody else with you.

That is an exception. It wouldn't be necessary to state that if it were the normal case. Therefore, every other teleport power does allow you to take other characters along.

QED.


Dimensional Door has a range of "personal." Even without that text, it affects only you.

Reminder text (with rules elsewhere) does not make an exception... or do you think that fighters and paladins give marked enemies -4 to hit other creatures?
Taking a specificly mentioned restriction and applying that to mean the restriction does not exist everywhere else is a VERY poor way to read rules.

That being said, in this case, the rule is now clearly stated.  Sort of.

To clarify, we don't say you can't teleport into midair, therefore you can.




The quote given by the wotc guy can mean two things.
#1) Just because we don't say you can't teleport mid-air means you can do it. Ergo, meaning you can't do it period.

#2) You can teleport midair. 

While the actual entry in the update seems pretty clear on it, this quote just muddles it up more and is a bit misleading. I would prefer if they were 100% clear about the intent and design of the rule. Simple yes or no's. Yes you can teleport creatures midair, or no you can't. If they wanted it to be clear cut, why on earth would he say something that could be interpreted in the other direction?

This reminds me of the update to storm pillar. They basically didn't want forced movement to trigger the damage, yet the actual rules update still allows it with readied actions made on the monster's turn. This sounds like lack of people agreeing in the update process, or someone doesn't know how to properly express the intent when writing the actual rules updates.



To clarify, we don't say you can't teleport into midair, therefore you can.




The quote given by the wotc guy can mean two things.
#1) Just because we don't say you can't teleport mid-air means you can do it. Ergo, meaning you can't do it period.



How the heck are you parsing that quote to get this?

To clarify, we don't say you can't teleport into midair, therefore you can.




The quote given by the wotc guy can mean two things.
#1) Just because we don't say you can't teleport mid-air means you can do it. Ergo, meaning you can't do it period.



How the heck are you parsing that quote to get this?


Only reasoning I can pull is that since he uses a double negative and double negatives are generally considered simply incorrect, neither positive or negative, then "shut up, that's why."
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.

The quote given by the wotc guy can mean two things.
#1) Just because we don't say you can't teleport mid-air means you can do it. Ergo, meaning you can't do it period.



How the heck are you parsing that quote to get this?


I'm trying to figure that out myself.

To clarify, we don't say you can't teleport into midair, therefore you can.




The quote given by the wotc guy can mean two things.
#1) Just because we don't say you can't teleport mid-air means you can do it. Ergo, meaning you can't do it period.



How the heck are you parsing that quote to get this?



All I'm saying is that it could have meant "if we don't mention it doesn't mean you can do it."
or "we don't say you can't therefore you can do it".

Is it really that hard to just say, hey you can teleport people vertically with a save attached, case closed? 
All I'm saying is that it could have meant "if we don't mention it doesn't mean you can do it."
or "we don't say you can't therefore you can do it".



Do I need to tell you about my uncle Jack and his horse?

Or rather, punctuation changes everything.  He literally says "therefore you can."  It's after a comma, so you can take it on its own without applying negatives to it.
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
All I'm saying is that it could have meant "if we don't mention it doesn't mean you can do it."
or "we don't say you can't therefore you can do it".



Do I need to tell you about my uncle Jack and his horse?

Or rather, punctuation changes everything.  He literally says "therefore you can."  It's after a comma, so you can take it on its own without applying negatives to it.




Sure, tell me all about your uncle and his horse. But you do realize that a comma typically comes after the word " therefore" (a conjunctive adverb) when it is connecting two clauses. Since it is improperly separated, the statement he gave isn't as clear as it could be. 

Original quote: "To clarify, we don't say you can teleport mid-air, therefore you can."
Altered quotes:
"To clarify, we don't say you can teleport mid-air. Therefore, you can." 
"To clarify, we don't say you can teleport mid-air; therefore, you can."

Quoted from wikipedia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_adverb
A conjunctive adverb is an adverb that connects two clauses. Conjunctive adverbs show cause and effect, sequence, contrast, comparison, or other relationships.

Use a semicolon or period before the conjunctive adverb to separate two independent clauses joined by a conjunctive adverb. A conjunctive adverb is not strong enough to join two independent clauses without the aid of a semicolon.

Use a comma following the conjunctive adverb when it appears at the beginning of the second clause unless the adverb is one syllable.

    bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/bu...);padding:0px;">
  • Alain can kickflip 13,456 stairs. Therefore, he is more of a beast than Dwight Howard.

  • Alain can kickflip 13,456 stairs; therefore, he is more of a beast than Dwight Howard.


 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_splice
A comma splice is the use of a comma to join (splice) two independent clauses, where the clauses are not connected by a conjunction such as "and".  For example: It is nearly half past five, we cannot reach town before dark.

Simply removing the comma does not correct the error, but results in a run-on sentence. There are several ways to correct this: 
Change the comma to another punctuation mark:
Write the two clauses as two separate sentences:
Insert a coordinating conjunction following the comma:
Make one clause dependent on the other:
Use a semicolon or dash and a conjunctive adverb
But you do realize that a comma typically comes after the word " therefore" (a conjunctive adverb) when it is connecting two clauses. Since it is improperly separated, the statement he gave isn't as clear as it could be. 



You do realize there's nothing about improperly placing a comma before the word therefore that completely inverts the meaning of the sentence?

Not even according to your wikpedia cut-paste.
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
The quote given by the wotc guy can mean two things.

In the context of the thread, he is addressing earlier posters saying "it still does not say whether or not verticle teleportation is allowed" and "Hm, come to think of it, they didn't actually address that, now did they?"
with
"To clarify, we don't say you can't teleport into midair, therefore you can."

At this point RAI is pretty darn clear.

The quote given by the wotc guy can mean two things.

In the context of the thread, he is addressing earlier posters saying "it still does not say whether or not verticle teleportation is allowed" and "Hm, come to think of it, they didn't actually address that, now did they?"
with
"To clarify, we don't say you can't teleport into midair, therefore you can."

At this point RAI is pretty darn clear.



That was also a point I was trying to make. He just mentioned the word "you". He did not confirm/clarify that you can teleport other creatures mid-air. The actual rule update infers you can though.
In the context of the thread, he is addressing earlier posters saying "it still does not say whether or not verticle teleportation is allowed" and "Hm, come to think of it, they didn't actually address that, now did they?"
with
"To clarify, we don't say you can't teleport into midair, therefore you can."

At this point RAI is pretty darn clear.



Yes.

Nevertheless, the point about Dimension Door still stands.

Statement A, "(some power) explicitly doesn't allow you to teleport into mid-air, and therefore all other teleport powers allow that."
Statement B, "Dimension Door explicitly doesn't allow you to bring other people along, and therefore all other teleport powers allow that."

Those statements are semantically equivalent. This means that (1) if the first is true, then so is the second, which I think most people will agree is silly; (2) if the second is "remainder text", then so is the first, and neither power implies anything about every other teleport power; and (3) people who arbitrarily claim the first statement to be RAW but the second to be "remainder text" aren't looking for the actual rules, but for a spurious excuse to make their character more powerful.


Nevertheless, the point about Dimension Door still stands.



Allow me to shoot down this argument then.

Dimension Door has a range of "personal." As such, it can only affect you anyways. What we have here is reminder text in the power with rules text elsewhere to back it up--or do you think that  every defender sans the warden places a -4 penalty on creatures they mark?
That was also a point I was trying to make. He just mentioned the word "you". He did not confirm/clarify that you can teleport other creatures mid-air. The actual rule update infers you can though.



I don't think it really does, it remains unaddressed.  That's my position because a horizontal teleport off a cliff would fit the update very nicely, so there is no reason to think a vertical teleport was involved.
That was also a point I was trying to make. He just mentioned the word "you". He did not confirm/clarify that you can teleport other creatures mid-air. The actual rule update infers you can though.



I don't think it really does, it remains unaddressed.  That's my position because a horizontal teleport off a cliff would fit the update very nicely, so there is no reason to think a vertical teleport was involved.



It was always allowed previously.

Fact 1: 3D targeting is allowed within the rules--unless you think a single flying enemy with a "flyby attack" can singlehandledly wreck a party.
Fact 2: The destination space only requires the target to be able to occupy it without squeezing. You can occupy a space in mid-air, otherwise you would never be able to fall and the fall rules (and catching yourself, and the new save for teleports) are pointless.
Fact 3: There is no rule disallowing verticle teleporting. Since the general rules allow it, it is viable.
I don't think it really does, it remains unaddressed.  That's my position because a horizontal teleport off a cliff would fit the update very nicely, so there is no reason to think a vertical teleport was involved.

Correct, you could teleport someone of a cliff without teleporting them vertically (so I understand your quandry). However, the prohibition against vertical movement is for forced movement only.... which teleportation is not (this is made more clear by the update... i.e. the teleportation rules are different than the forced movement rules, and the newly added teleport save does not require you to go prone).

Also (as mentioned earlier) after two posters specifically asked (here) if you can teleport someone vertically, one of the game editors answered saying "you can".

Statement A, "(some power) explicitly doesn't allow you to teleport into mid-air, and therefore all other teleport powers allow that."
Statement B, "Dimension Door explicitly doesn't allow you to bring other people along, and therefore all other teleport powers allow that."

Those statements are semantically equivalent. This means that (1) if the first is true, then so is the second, which I think most people will agree is silly.


Ahem. Let's try this exercise with different statements.

A: Dogs exist.
B: Unicorns exist.
A is semantically equivalent to B. Therefore, if A is true, then B is true.


Semantic similarity does not make two statements equally true.

There's an simpler and more reasonable way to interpret the second clause in Dimension Door. Since the fluff describes the creation of a door, the writer just wanted to make sure that people who were reading a brand new and unfamiliar rule set wouldn't get confused and think that the power created a free-standing door through which any person could move. Even though the range is personal, you can be certain that if that second line hadn't been there, for months there would have been threads titled "Dimesion door please help!!" that asked, "After i use the door can other people use it with move actions to or just standards?"


Sarlax Chicago, IL --- Find local gamers via Google Maps @ http://nearbygamers.com/

Nevertheless, the point about Dimension Door still stands.

And out of all teleport powers, that's the best (or only?) case you could find?

Well yes, technically going the extra length to include such a restriction in DD could be an indicator that the lack of such a restriction is the case for all other powers. So we need to look at all other powers to see whether they also carry such a restriction or not.


E.g. for teleport we have multiple powers from multiple books (both PC and NPC powers) who restrict themselves to not being able to teleport into the air and none that feel to have to specifically allow themselves to teleport into the air.


For teleporting others we have DD, which for one has a range of "personal" yet also a "can't take someone with you" restriction that does seem redundant after the "personal" range. 


 

Statement A, "(some power) explicitly doesn't allow you to teleport into mid-air, and therefore all other teleport powers allow that."
Statement B, "Dimension Door explicitly doesn't allow you to bring other people along, and therefore all other teleport powers allow that."

Those statements are semantically equivalent. This means that (1) if the first is true, then so is the second, which I think most people will agree is silly.


Ahem. Let's try this exercise with different statements.

A: Dogs exist.
B: Unicorns exist.
A is semantically equivalent to B. Therefore, if A is true, then B is true.


Semantic similarity does not make two statements equally true.

You're missing the distinction between propositions and logic.  Both of your examples are propositions; they have no analogy.

A better example is: "Everything that has four legs can walk.  Dogs have 4 legs, therefore they can walk.".  The analogy is "Everything that has four legs can walk.  Tables have 4 legs, therefore they can walk.".

The first example actually contains two propositions.  The first is obvious: "dogs have 4 legs".  The second is the logical claim "Everything that has four legs can walk.".  The example asserts this logical claim; it doesn't try to prove it.

The second example disproves the logical claim.  Tables do have four legs.  Tables cannot walk.  The logic is analogous.  Therefore the only thing that can be broken is the logical proposition.

The argument above is applying the same logic.  Unless DD can be shown to be materially different, we must either conclude that DD proves that normal teleport powers allow friends along, or that "the exception proves the rule" isn't as strong as some might prefer.

The proposition is that "X explicitly excludes Y, therefore any power that doesn't explicitly exclude Y includes it.". Aside from possibly falling to counter-examples (such as the one above), it also ignores the fact that the rules sometimes choose to explicitly clarify things, and this doesn't necessarily have any impact on things that are not so clarified.  If I say "Don't cross this road without looking, or you might get hit by a car", and then simply say "And don't cross that road without looking", this does not suggest that there is no risk from cars on the second road.
Has anyone read Wakeman's Invocation (warlock 22) from AP? It has the teleport keyword, and its personal, but you never actually teleport with it, rather other creatures that hit you.
Unless DD can be shown to be materially different, we must either conclude that DD proves that normal teleport powers allow friends along, or that "the exception proves the rule" isn't as strong as some might prefer.

Yeah... DD is odd. I don't expect all rules to be perfectly written, but the only reason I could see for the qualifier here is that the writer might've felt that the fluff text might lead people astray (especially in regard to mounts):
"You trace the outline of a doorway in front of you, step through the portal, and reappear somewhere else nearby."
Sign In to post comments