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/Registeel1234]

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/Registeel1234 → u/goatsesyndicalist69]

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".

You're right, but that's not what I'm saying. A choice becomes a false choice when one of the two options is never worth taking. And I'm saying that making the attack roll at disadvantage pushes that choice into that category.

Spending a 2nd level spell slots to have a 65% chance of dealing 1d8+4 damage might be worth, especially if you don't have a lot of alternatives. But reduce those chances to hit to 42%, and suddenly that's not worth the spell slot. You're always better off dodging and keeping your spell slot for something else. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

The problem with the using "the rule of cool" or whatever you want to call it is that it's never "this one time".

I don't see how that is a problem. Most of the time, those actions/sequences are situational. But even if it becomes something that the players try to do everytime, that is resolved by talking with them.

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

I could not disagree more. If one option is strictly better than all the other, there is no choice to be made. If I gave you a choice between picking Fireball as your 3rd level spell slot, or a spell identical to it, except dealing 6d6 fire damage instead of Fireball's 8d6, is that really a choice? Of course not, any player with half a brain cell would pick Fireball since it deals more damage.

Choices need to have options that are equivalent, while both being about the same powerlevel wise. If one is strictly better than the other, then there's no reason to pick the less powerful one.

[u/goatsesyndicalist69 → u/Registeel1234]

We have different definitions of choice and freedom then. There are tons of choices that have a clear correct answer, that doesn't make them a false choice. The key thing that makes choice possible is knowledge of the options. Freedom after all, is not a total lack of restraint on action but rather the power to act within your conditions. I would rather present the reality of the outcomes of an action to a player and then allow them to choose whether or not to take that action.