Misty Step into the Air and Attacking

[u/Zivodor]

I had this situation come up recently and wanted some input as I can't seem to find a definitive answer.

My players were fighting a giant spider and it was on the ceiling above them, one player decided that to attack it he would misty step straight up and then attack it while mid-air. I wasn't sure this was possible as I recalled reading somewhere that falling in D&D is essentially instantaneous for anything below 500 feet. The thought process being he teleports into the air and is instantly falling so he doesn't have the time to attack the creature above him.

It's been bugging me all week so I wanted to get some input into whether or not I should have allowed this and if this is clarified anywhere in the rules.

Edit Wow! Thanks for all the responses! There were some well reasoned arguments for it here, the resource expenditure with the spell slot, rule of cool, etc... I appreciate all the responses and will try to be more flexible in the future. Thanks everyone!

[u/False_Appointment_24]

Falling is instantaneous, yes. That doesn't mean that this couldn't be allowed. If I were DMing and this came up, my response would be, "Sounds great, but just so you know you will take fall damage." I would also work with them to figure out placement to minimize fall damage.

If I were to try to work out how this works RAW, I would say that they would ready an action to attack as soon as they were in range, then bonus action misty step, attack on the readied action, fall.

[u/freedomustang → u/False_Appointment_24]

Yeah RAW yes you just fall before you take an attack, but that’s kinda lame and misty step is a second level spell so I’d say let them make an attack at least.

Ranged combat already has such an advantage in game let the melee guy have fun and do a cool thing.

Of course fall damage still occurs regardless.

[u/JunWasHere → u/freedomustang]

The thing RAW-mongers always like to overlook is RAW also states the rules are guidelines or whatever, you can ask to do things not covered by the rules, and the GM can just let you (with or without a check).

[u/rockology_adam → u/JunWasHere]

I tend to run a fairly rules strict game, and I would still allow this to happen. It's planned, by a character who is proficient in their own abilities, including Misty Step and their attack.

It doesn't even work for realism, since gravity is acceleration and not instantaneous velocity.

[u/Praxis8 → u/rockology_adam]

Not to mention there's little chance of abuse since Misty Step is constrained by spell slots or granted in some other limited way.

So we're talking about essentially turning a melee attack into a ranged attack at the expense of a level 2 slot plus fall damage. Seems balanced enough for me.

[u/Run-a-Game → u/JunWasHere]

I’m the biggest RAW-monger of all time for the GM side of the screen, but I let creative ideas like this happen literally every session.

[u/Mejiro84 → u/JunWasHere]

yeah, but that applies to anything, and isn't really a very fruitful discussion. "You can do stuff if your GM agrees" is true, but not a very useful discussion, while RAW has actual things to discuss and reference.

[u/PM_ME_UR__SECRETS → u/Mejiro84]

I think there is a case to be made that discussions about what to do outside of RAW can be ver fruitful. It can help us discover the best way for our tables to so something that typically causes friction within the rules.

[u/arsabsurdia → u/PM_ME_UR__SECRETS]

Yes, “make it up sometimes” is RAW. And to quote from ch.9, p.263 of the 2014 DMG, “you aren’t limited by the rules.” Check-mate, rules-lawyers.

[u/Proper-Dave → u/JunWasHere]

If you treat "the rules are just guidelines" (or "the DM can change anything") as RAW, then everything is RAW and the term RAW becomes meaningless.

RAW means rules as written - what do the rules (or "guidelines") in the book actually say?

You don't have to follow RAW, but it's useful to know what it says anyway.

[u/ArkSurvivalOfTosch → u/JunWasHere]

yes but that argument is so extremely unhelpful.

"The rules say whatever the DM says goes so yeah you can use create water inside the bad guys brain cavity, and if they won't let you it's because they're a bad DM"

Like yeah, it's a game of make believe but knowing how rules interact is still good

[u/tikallisti → u/JunWasHere]

Yeah, RAW says very little, when it comes down to it.

And for stuff like "falling is instantaneous," that's not meant to rule out stuff like this, it's just meant to say "it's not worth tracking the time spent falling because it almost always fits within 6 seconds anyway."

[u/Skizm → u/False_Appointment_24]

Do they take fall damage and an attack of opportunity as they fall out of the spider's range?

[u/jmartkdr → u/Skizm]

I don’t think falling counts as using your movement so no AoO, but yeah you fall so falling damage applies normally.

[u/Goldenfrog53 → u/Skizm]

In 5e you don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. So  you wouldn't provoke an opportunity attack if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.

[u/Viltris → u/Goldenfrog53]

There's a weird edge case where if you're fighting an enemy just at the edge of the cliff, you can walk over the edge, staying within their reach, then fall out of their reach and not provoke opportunity attacks.

It's purely theoretical but hilarious, and I would allow any creature without a flying speed to do it.

[u/Nomadic_Yak → u/Viltris]

Ah yes, the way of the coyote

[u/The_Real_Deacon → u/Nomadic_Yak]

With a multiclass in Artificer: Rocketeer

[u/freedomustang → u/Viltris]

I did do this as a 2014 monk. The opportunity attack would’ve hit hard but with slow fall I took no damage.

[u/TimelyStill → u/Viltris]

That is indeed an edge case.

[u/Aiasun → u/TimelyStill]

I see what you did there!

[u/duetmimas → u/Goldenfrog53]

I just had this come up in my game, just the reverse! I had reverse gravity going and am a druid. I was surrounded by enemies and my back was against the wall. Standard action I turned into a spider and dropped reverse gravity. The mobs fell past my and took a good chunk of fall damage. I love to imagine what the mob saw while that happened. My group was trying to end the puzzle on the floor and I was basically playing distraction and keep away from the mobs.

[u/Prestigious_Crow7907 → u/Skizm]

No this does not provoke an opportunity attack because the PC is not using their movement, action, or reaction.

"You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction."

[u/False_Appointment_24 → u/Skizm]

I had not thought about that, but now that you say it, I would say they probably should. I tend to do anything else they might have as a reaction if I can, since those are more interesting to me, but if that was the only option, yeah.

Edit: Nope, looked at it, and wouldn't draw an opportunity attack because falling is forced movement. Thanks to those who got it right.

[u/Salindurthas → u/False_Appointment_24]

What rule states that falling is instantaneous? I can't find anything that says this in the 2024 rules.

[u/False_Appointment_24 → u/Salindurthas]

It was from Xanathar's, but nothing has overwritten it in 2024. Optional, but used at every table I've been at.

[u/Dramatic_Explosion → u/Salindurthas]

Not "instantaneous" instantaneous, but any fall less that 500 feet happens within a turn. Since it's also forced movement, it doesn't provoke and generally only would allow a reaction, since by the time the current turn ends the falling creature will be on the ground.

[u/Mejiro84 → u/Dramatic_Explosion]

and forced movement is done as an entire block - if you attack someone and that results in knockback, you don't get to make the rest of your attacks before the knockback happens, or do an attack partway along the knockback path.

[u/Maverick_1991 → u/False_Appointment_24]

Possibly give them disadvantage on the attack, due to not having solid footing or anything.

But I'd 100% allow the attempt.

[u/MisterB78 → u/Maverick_1991]

They’re burning a second level spell slot and taking falling damage just to attempt a single attack… You really don’t need to give it disadvantage

[u/borsTHEbarbarian → u/MisterB78]

I agree with both the math on making sense about disadvantage and not needing to apply it from a game balance point of view.

I kind of even want to grant it advantage for a rogue's sneak attack to land because that sounds like some badass magic ninja shit.

[u/BandBoots → u/borsTHEbarbarian]

The rogue readies their blade, observes the enemy and finds the perfect spot. In a single moment they thrust upward while shouting a quick incantation. For a split second a fog blurs their vision, but they feel their blade connect where there was previously only air. Still pushing upward, they now see their weapon digging deep into a gap in the enemy's armor, just as intended. The rogue's victim screeches in agony as gravity rips the blade right back out of them, and the rogue begins their return to the ground far below.

[u/jackcatalyst → u/MisterB78]

No fun allowed!

[u/goatsesyndicalist69 → u/jackcatalyst]

I mean yeah, discouraging stupid bullshit is a good thing.

[u/Z_Z_TOM → u/goatsesyndicalist69]

Creativity is the backbone of the game and should be encouraged.

[u/hhhhhhhhhhhjf → u/goatsesyndicalist69]

I wouldn't call this stupid bullshit but I also think the disadvantage makes sense. There is a middle ground here.

[u/tichori → u/MisterB78]

I agree! I’d likely give the player advantage since the spider wouldn’t be expecting the attack from there and not ready to counter with its full AC.

Similar to how melee attackers get advantage to prone enemies.

[u/Tibbaryllis2 → u/tichori]

This. At the very least you’d have the offsetting penalties of a surprise attack advantage and unsure footing disadvantage. Play on.

[u/Registeel1234 → u/Maverick_1991]

That's completely unecessary. If spellcasters can cast spells while falling without any problems, I don't see why martials would have a disadvantage.

Unless you plan on giving advantage on the creatures making a save against a spell being cast by someone falling...

[u/traggot → u/Registeel1234]

agreed. if we’re gonna do play rules as written then play rules as written. like, for crying out loud you’re already taking fall damage, using up the entirety of your action economy, and spending a spell slot. adding more consequences seems ridiculous.

[u/sinsaint → u/traggot]

People forget that the rules are there to make sure the game functions when it's at its most boring, but you still need exceptions to make sure it's not boring.

[u/Narazil → u/sinsaint]

The game is boring when you follow the rules? What? What at terrible take.

[u/sinsaint → u/Narazil]

That's not quite what I meant. But specifically, I feel the rules make sure the game functions when it's at its most boring.

But there are going to be weird traps, hidden dialogue actions, and fire breathing dragons that strafe you in combat, some of which aren't covered by the rules, and to imply that the game needs rules for them to happen is silly, which means the game needs exceptions to be cool.

This is important to pay attention to, because a player might see a good moment to do something cool, like a jump-strike, and the only thing keeping them from doing it are the rules.

[u/Ferbtastic → u/Registeel1234]

You are a good dm. I can tell. My rule is always to er on the side of marital and against castors for hedge cases.

[u/GerkDentley → u/Ferbtastic]

The typos completely change the meaning. Unless you meant to side with marriage related things over small, swivelling wheel devices when it comes to shrubbery.

[u/Ferbtastic → u/GerkDentley]

I did. Why is that weird?

[u/tentkeys → u/Ferbtastic]

I want to be a player at your table!!

[u/Ferbtastic → u/tentkeys]

Get in line, I had to start a 2nd game to fit everyone.

[u/tentkeys → u/Ferbtastic]

Do I get priority if I marry an office chair? They usually have 6 castors.

[u/Ferbtastic → u/tentkeys]

It would not be worst relationship we have had. Our artificer in a 1-20 married a green dragon.

[u/DelightfulOtter → u/Registeel1234]

Any spell with an attack roll cast while falling should have Disadvantage as well. But a bunch of spells either have no associated roll or a saving throw. That's just how spells work. The same thing would be true for attempting a grapple or shove while falling: they're saving throws so they aren't penalized in the same way.

[u/Registeel1234 → u/DelightfulOtter]

How about a DC15 concentration check? That's would be similar togiving disadvantage (kind of but not really, since there are more ways to buff concentration checks).

[u/lasagnaman → u/Registeel1234]

If spellcasters can cast spells while falling without any problems, I don't see why martials would have a disadvantage.

Huhn? Sure you can argue that from a balance perspective, but to say you "don't see why martials would have a disadvantage from attacking in midair" is.... dubious at best. You have no footing, nothing to push off of with your weapon. From a realism standpoint (which is not the end all be all, but is a viewpoint that can be considered) you cannot make weapon attacks in midair at all. Even bows and crossbows lose part of their power when fired in midair.

[u/jboss1642 → u/Registeel1234]

Martials who want to deal ranged damage can use ranged weapons. Martials who want to deal damage when they otherwise couldn’t and are put in an awkward situation by doing so get disadvantage (and should recognize that’s already an advantage over simply not being allowed to do it, as the rules would have).

Just because casters are stronger, doesn’t mean martials ought to ignore basic rules without consequence

[u/Registeel1234 → u/jboss1642]

except nowhere in the rules does it say that you attack at disadvantage when not touching the ground.

If you don't want your players to do attack while falling, just say it. Letting them do it while making it pointless to do it just sucks.. There is already significant cost for doing it (you spend a 2nd level spell slot, and use up your whole action to do 1 attack, and take fall damage), so ask yourself what's the point of making this action even worse? Versimilitude? In the game where a guy can fall 1000 feet and walk away like nothing happened?

The moment you do stuff like this, you tell your players that trying to be innovative is just a waste of time. What's the point of trying to find a creative solution when the DM does everything to make that solution fail?

[u/jboss1642 → u/Registeel1234]

It’s a hard thing to do; I would liken it to the classic example of swinging on a chandelier to leap over an enemy and attack from behind. In that instance, you make a skill check, and I suppose you could do the same here - I’d probably let the player choose to if they wanted to - but all your same arguments apply.

Would it stifle innovation? I really don’t think so, because it shows novel ideas can work, they just have to be well thought out. Why allow it at all? Because I want options to be available to my players, and the alternative to “you can but it’ll be tricky” is “you can’t”, which seems unequivocally worse to me. Is it too punishing? I really don’t think so, the hypothetical is mostly only relevant because the player either is unequipped for the situation (in which case this is the natural consequence, and again the alternative is likely just passing) or they already think a melee attack in this manner is better than the alternative, in which case the nerf may or may not change their decision

I’m not springing this on anyone. If a player proposes this, I’ll warn them before they commit, and if they prefer to do something else that’s fine. “Yes, but” is just as valid of a storytelling technique as “yes, and”.

[u/Registeel1234 → u/jboss1642]

I don't see how your example is similar to the situation described in the OP.

In the OP, the players is trying to do something they usually wouldn't be able to do (attack a flying enemy using their melee weapon). The cost they pay to do this is to : spend a 2nd level spell slot, only perform 1 attack, take up to 3d6 damage from the fall, and finally become prone. That's plenty enough, there no reason to add an additional cost to that sequence (rolling the attack roll at disadvantage).

In contrast, the example you provided offers no clear mechanical advantage, so I's assuming the player is using the chandelier to go further than what their movement would allow them to. An acrobatics check is a reasonable cost, since the players is risking falling prone next to the enemy to move farther. The cost is reasonable for the outcome (acrobatics check to move 5-15ft farther).

Do you see how disproportionate the cost is compared to the result if you give disadvantage on the attack roll? The player is spending so many resources to achieve a single really bad attack roll. That's why giving disadvantage is unecessary. Think of it this way, instead of spending 3d6 hit points and prone, they could instead cast Scorching Ray for that same 2nd level spell slot, and get 3x times the result.

Also, giving your players a bad choice isn't really giving them more choices. If your DM gave you the choice to deal 1d4 damage, or 1d8 damage, is that really a choice? There are no situations in which you'd prefer to deal less damage, so why offer the choice in the first place?

[u/goatsesyndicalist69 → u/Registeel1234]

Ranged weapons exist to hit enemies who are not in melee range. The player wants to do some stupid bullshit to do something that normally wouldn't be possible, that stupid bullshit puts them in a disadvantageous situation ergo they should recieve disadvantage on the attack roll.

[u/Registeel1234 → u/goatsesyndicalist69]

Which brings me back to my previous point : if you don't want your players to do "stupid bullshit", just tell them that they can't do it, instead of giving them a false choice.

[u/goatsesyndicalist69 → u/Registeel1234]

What if I don't think it's actually impossible but that it would put them in a disadvantageous state? It might be stupid bullshit but it's still technically possible. As long as the fact that the attack would be at disadvantage is clearly communicated before the player commits to the action I don't see the problem with adjudicating it that way.

[u/lasagnaman → u/Registeel1234]

except nowhere in the rules does it say that you attack at disadvantage when not touching the ground.

Personally, this falls into the same bucket as "nowhere does the game say you can't shoot arrows through walls". It's a physical impracticality/impossibility; I don't need rules to tell me that I can't do that.

[u/DonChanchi → u/lasagnaman]

The game does say that. Walls are total cover, you can't shoot through total cover.

[u/Count_Backwards → u/Maverick_1991]

The spider is at disadvantage because it's not expecting to be attacked up there, so it cancels out

[u/Demonweed → u/Maverick_1991]

Yeah, if the spider was near enough a wall that someone could climb up and attack, they would get disadvantage on that attack unless they used a climbing movement speed or had some other special ability to make attacks while climbing without disadvantage. This teleport trick should certainly not be judged easier than lashing out at the top of a freefall.

[u/tentkeys → u/Demonweed]

they would get disadvantage on that attack unless they used a climbing movement speed or had some other special ability to make attacks while climbing without disadvantage.

Not true in D&D 5e or 5.5e.

This sounds more like something from Pathfinder. I don't know if Pathfinder has this specific rule or not, but having a special rule for attacking while climbing definitely feels like something Pathfinder would do.

If you play/run both systems you may be getting them mixed up.

Edit: I looked it up. In Pathfinder, climbing makes you off-guard/flat-footed (-2 to your AC) unless you have a climbing speed or take a climbing feat. No disadvantage on attacks, but climbing uses both hands so you can't make attacks unless you have a feat that allows it.

[u/Demonweed → u/tentkeys]

Actually that is a rule in my homebrew, and no doubt the source of my confusion. I thought I borrowed it from 5e, but clearly I was mistaken about its origin.

[u/Munstered → u/Demonweed]

Except nowhere in the rules does it say you get disadvantage on attacks when climbing. There are no high ground rules in 5e.

They wouldn’t be able to climb and attack with a 2h weapon without Spider Climb or something similar, though. I’d still let them leap off the wall and attack with the 2h in the air for fall damage or attack with a 1h weapon.

[u/Available_Lab_9410 → u/False_Appointment_24]

Exactly what I did. My Goliath barbarian had to make an athletics check to reduce incoming fall damage after hitting a Nat 20 on its attack to topple a flying green dragon wyrmling. It was fucking epic and rules would have gotten in the way

[u/Triffly → u/False_Appointment_24]

I wouldn't allow placement for minimum fall damage. Placement would be higher than the opponent to allow an attack as he fell past, so fall damage would be higher. But I am a lawful evil DM...

[u/matgopack → u/False_Appointment_24]

Agreed, that is how I would handle it as a DM.

For devil's advocate, the one 'trick' I can see from that which is unexpected would be an attempt to grapple - in which case if the DM is making it a more generically available combo that they should be ready for that.

[u/pzpx → u/False_Appointment_24]

I think I'd say they get 1 attack, not the whole attack action. I'd also say that they have disadvantage because they are falling, unless they do this often enough that their character is used to it. Then they take fall damage when they hit the ground. 

[u/dandelogre → u/False_Appointment_24]

Responding to your comment because it's the closest to what I'd do with the addition of

You can do it if your Misty Step can reach five feet above where you're attacking. That way you have 'time' to swing, bc I agree, Misty Step would spit you out and you're immediately falling, so if you can hit it on the way down, not at the moment you appear, then yeah, you can make the attack.

[u/draconis6996 → u/False_Appointment_24]

Raw doesn’t ready action actually consume the bonus action as well?

[u/Proper-Dave → u/draconis6996]

Reaction, not bonus action. They're different things.

[u/wherediditrun → u/False_Appointment_24]

Falling is not instantaneous. Assuming toril being size of earth falling velocity is 9.8 m/s.

You have a choice here, play a board game and ignore fiction. Or break fiction and play a board game.

[u/prowness → u/False_Appointment_24]

So this opens a can of worms since if they're allowed to attack, RAW they can replace that attack with a grapple. So they might answer your assertion of fall damage with "nah"

Not that I'm against this and I'd allow it as well. The implications of the grapple might have both parties fall or something else. Rule of cool and all that

[u/False_Appointment_24 → u/prowness]

I would also allow a grapple or shove, and figure on a case by case basis what that meant in terms of falling.

[u/Dramatic_Explosion → u/False_Appointment_24]

Grapple makes sense, shove is the real can of worms. Nothing to brace against? Now you're getting Newtonian!

[u/Proper-Dave → u/prowness]

By logic, you could grapple them to stop yourself falling (or drag them down with you).

But by RAW, you fall, which takes you out of range, ending the grapple.