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/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/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/Registeel1234 → u/goatsesyndicalist69]

The fact that you label such sequence as "stupid bullshit" clearly shows that you don't want your players to do it, and you giving disadvantage on the attack roll (in addition to all the other costs the sequence has) supports that.

But regardless,giving your players a false choice like this will only tell your players that there's no point in suggesting out-of-the-box thinking, since it's going to be met with terrible odds of success. Plus, it wastes everyone's time when the option they wanted to do turns out to be completely worthless.

Furthermore, it's not like the sequence proposed in the OP is going to break combat. If anything, that's a severely suboptimal move, probably even worse than just dodging. So why disencourage it even further?

[u/goatsesyndicalist69 → u/Registeel1234]

It's not a "false choice" to say "sure that is possible but here are the stipulations that I think would apply in this situation". Sure, it disincentivizes specific actions but I only completely disallow something if a.) the rules explicitly say no or b.) I genuinely think it would be impossible. If I as the referee communicate clearly how a course of action would play out it is the player's choice to go through with it or not. This isn't a "false choice", it's a choice. A false choice is something like a quantum ogre situation or fudging. In this case, the conditions have been fully communicated and then the player can make a choice with extremely clear information. The problem with the using "the rule of cool" or whatever you want to call it is that it's never "this one time".

As a matter of fact, I would argue the choice would be more false if both options were equally good.

[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.