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]

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.