Monks Walk on Water and run up walls ability

[nickl_2000]

So, this ability do we assume that at the end of your turn you need to be on a solid/horizontal surface?

Can you run over liquid, hit someone, and then continue the run without sinking?

[Sigreid]

Yes, you will sink or fall at the end if your turn.

[Tubben]

Yes, you will sink or fall at the end if your turn.

Strict RAW, yes. But, well, i think that depends on how you view a combat round.

In my mind eveything happens at once while that 6 seconds of a round. It's not like, that your turn happens at second 1, then you do 5 seconds nothing (beside maybe your reaction) and then in the next round you act again in second 1.

But RAW you will fall, because you only dont fall while you are moving during your turn.


UNARMORED MOVEMENT
At 9th level, you gain the ability to move along vertical surfaces and across liquids on your turn without falIing during the move,

So, how would you rule that out of combat?

An Monk wants to cross an sea with with 200f diameter. Can he do this? Given RAW he cant (without falling into the water), because he cant move further than his maximum movement.

If you allow it, you have to allow it while combat also, if he continue his movement in the next round.

Edit : I would allow Move->Hit->Move without sinking. It's a lv 9 class ability. If you limit it on the maximum movement of the monk it's more or less useless. I just dont know if RAI is here different than RAW.

[Sigreid]

Out of combat I would rule that you've got 6 seconds of movement. So your move speed plus your dash speed.

[ImproperJustice]

Kinda like Dash in the Incredibles when he is being chased and finally stops, dropping into the water.

[nickl_2000]

So what an enemy in the water (or using water walk), you run 15 feet smack them with a few fancy martial arts moves, then run past them on water. Is that allowed? Logic would say no in my mind

[Sigreid]

So what an enemy in the water (or using water walk), you run 15 feet smack them with a few fancy martial arts moves, then run past them on water. Is that allowed? Logic would say no in my mind

I would say yes. Since you haven't really stopped your movement you just are really quick.

[sightlessrealit]

Personally the way I see it is If a monk uses their full movement on their turn then they won't start sinking. Cause when you actually think about it they aren't actually stopping.

[Ventruenox]

Unless you take the stance that attacking would transfer all of the kinetic energy from the monk's movement, you should be able to continue the movement without sinking. Even then, there is the "Ki = Magic > Physics" arguement to overcome. At level 9, let the PC have his Crouching Tiger, Spanking Monkey moment.

[Tanarii]

So what an enemy in the water (or using water walk), you run 15 feet smack them with a few fancy martial arts moves, then run past them on water. Is that allowed? Logic would say no in my mind
By a strict trading reading, definitely not. It only works while you are moving.

Make it a jump kick instead. :smallamused:

[nickl_2000]

By a strict trading, definitely not. It only works while you are moving.

Make it a jump kick instead. :smallamused:

How about this instead (well, without the fireball afterwards)

https://media.giphy.com/media/qBijow3fUtKZa/giphy.gif

[Tanarii]

How about this instead

https://media.giphy.com/media/qBijow3fUtKZa/giphy.gif
Haha yep definitely the way to go.

[Seppo87]

Falling is not caused by stopping

It's caused by the time limit of "maximum 6 consecutive seconds"

[Easy_Lee]

If a monk runs his movement speed, say 45', across water, it works as long as he does so over six seconds. Furthermore, he can apparently move 5' into water, stand there for a full five seconds, then move the remaining 5' and stop. But what he cannot do is move continuously over water at his maximum possible speed while dashing for more than six continuous seconds.

It's also unclear whether the monk, after falling into water, can spring back on top of the water and continue running. Would that cost half his movement speed, as if getting up from being prone? Would having the Athlete feat get around that? No one knows. Ask your DM.

It does not compute by traditional physics. Instead, simply assume there is some force that will allow the monk to stick to walls or move along water for exactly and only six seconds at a time, and that he can use it at will. By strict RAW, that's exactly how it operates.

[Tanarii]

Falling is not caused by stopping

Depends entirely on how strictly the DM interpets "during your move".

Edit: for that matter "stopping".

The rules are explicit you can break your move up around attacks, so it could easily be interpeted as not "stopping" and all part of "during your move". I'm arguing devil's advocate on this one because I can easily see it being interpreted either way.

[Seppo87]

Depends entirely on how strictly the DM interpets "during your move".

Edit: for that matter "stopping".

The rules are explicit you can break your move up around attacks, so it could easily be interpeted as not "stopping" and all part of "during your move". I'm arguing devil's advocate on this one because I can easily see it being interpreted either way.

I can interpret it just as easy lee

[Tubben]

found a nice article here (the following is a direct quote from this link) (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/76322/how-far-can-a-9th-level-monk-move-along-a-vertical-surfaces-and-across-liquids-w/76323)

The monk must end its movement for each turn on solid ground or fall.

Unarmored Movement, PHB p. 78, emphasis mine:


At 9th level, you gain the ability to move along vertical surfaces and across liquids on your turn without falling during the move.

The monk doesn't fall during the move when moving this way. A character's move doesn't span turns; it's something they do during their turn. Thus, at the end of the monk's turn, their move ends, and if they aren't standing on something solid, they fall.

Also note the "on your turn" condition. A monk can't run over liquids or up walls when moving as part of a reaction during another creature's turn.

To address the examples in the question:



As an example, let's assume a monk with 30' movement is 10' away from a 30' wide body of water. The monk moves 10' on land and then 20' on water and then the monk's turn is over. Does the monk fall in the water?

Yes. Their move is over, so their Unarmored Movement ability isn't preventing them from falling. Also note that a 9th level human monk will have a speed of 45 feet.


A slightly different example. Let's assume the monk has 30' of movement and is at the edge of a 1000' wide body of water. How far can the monk move before falling in?

90 feet. The monk can spend one ki point and use Step of the Wind to take Dash as a bonus action, then take Dash again as their action for the turn, so they may move 90 feet in total that turn. Again, note that typically a 9th level monk would be able to move (3 x 45) = 135 feet.


One answer might be the monk can move its movement, then it is no longer able to stay above the water and gets dunked. If this is the case, can the monk get back up on the water and keep moving?

That's up to the DM. They might require some or all of:
• a Strength (Athletics) check to tread water as soon as their move ends
• a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to get enough of their body out of the water to resume moving on top of the water on their next turn.
• using movement equal to half their speed to "stand up" from their "prone" position in the water.

To summarize: how far can a 9th level monk move along a vertical surfaces and across liquids without falling?

As far as they can move during their turn.

How the rules handle continuous movement

The rules actually don't specify how to handle continuous movement that extends beyond a character's turn. Very long falls should take more than a turn to complete, and a character who starts a jump at the end of their turn's movement presumably doesn't lose all momentum and stop moving.

So it's up to the DM; for jumping movement, they might rule that
• characters can only jump if they have enough movement left on their turn to finish the jump, or
• characters who end a turn in 'mid-jump' must finish the jump at the start of their next turn, and (maybe) can't take reactions until then.

Likewise for monks, the DM may rule that they can 'carry over' unused 'wall running' movement from turn to turn.

Of course, because of other aspects of the 5th Edition turn system, which allows characters to act, move, and be moved in between their turns, these options can introduce many other areas where the DM would need to make rulings. If a monk ends their turn walking on water, and they are moved by an effect such as thunderwave, are they still walking on water? Does the amount they were moved deduct from the distance they can move across water on their next turn? And so on.

My reading of the intent of the monk's Unarmed Movement feature is that it limits the distance a monk can travel up a vertical surface (or over liquid) without an intervening solid, horizontal surface. The easiest way to do that is to confine these intervals to the movement on the monk's turn.

[Zejety]

Even in an interpretation where movement is continuous, limiting the ability to 6 seconds can still be narratively justified.
I can only hold my breath for a given amount of time, who says channeling ki doesn't work in a similiar way? :-P

[Easy_Lee]

Even in an interpretation where movement is continuous, limiting the ability to 6 seconds can still be narratively justified.
I can only hold my breath for a given amount of time, who says channeling ki doesn't work in a similiar way? :-P

The monk isn't spending ki to do this but, in principle, I agree with you. We don't know how monks work, why some of their abilities count as magic while others don't, or even whether the physical laws of FR so much as resemble our own.

To that last point, we actually have evidence that D&D physics do not line up at all with real world physics. Falling damage and healing from rests are two areas where they most certainly don't. One assumption one could make is that the gods of D&D arrange it such that the world works the way they want it to work.

In short, it's best to leave one's assumptions and preconceived notions at the door when diving into game mechanics.

[Bubzors]

I recently played in a campaign where I was a monk with mobility. It never really came up in play (ya know with having 165ft movement with bonus action dash) but we always ruled it didn’t matter what you did on the move, just at the end of the turn you fell from the wall or whatever surface yoU were running on.

We usually just rationaled it as your momentum running out. It’s not like a vertical wall is much challenge to the monk with Slowfall and all. So yea, attack or whatever during the movement, but if you haven’t made it solid ground you sink or fall.

The one time I fell into water my DM made me do an athletics check to see if I could propel myself back up and running on the next turn. Seemed reasonable to me.

I also once used to it run across lava to close distance between me and a red dragon. Yea my character took some fire damage and ended up with burnt feet, but climbing into a dragon was well worth it

[Luccan]

My best guess for this? It somehow involves both speed and Ki focus. And that act can't be kept up for more than about 6 seconds continuously.

Notably

At 9th level, you gain the ability to move along vertical surfaces and across liquids on your turn without falling during the move.

Which makes me think it must be continuous movement. If a player described their attack to me in some way that would let them keep momentum, I'd probably allow them to attack then move again.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The monk doesn't fall during the move when moving this way. A character's move doesn't span turns; it's something they do during their turn. Thus, at the end of the monk's turn, their move ends, and if they aren't standing on something solid, they fall.

I would use the opposite wording to reach the same conclusion: precisely because movement spans the entire turn, it's not until the turn ends that you go blub blub. Not even reaching your move capacity for your usual speed technically "ends movement", as you could conceivably take some action or trigger some circumstance whereby you gain a new, higher speed.

As for actions in mid-turn: picking a lock or forging a letter - you probably fall. Attacking - you don't fall, because you probably don't really stop.

[sir_argo]

Which makes me think it must be continuous movement. If a player described their attack to me in some way that would let them keep momentum, I'd probably allow them to attack then move again.

I'm a mounted knight with a lance. I charge a foe that 40' away from me. That's 40' of movement, then a lance attack, then another 20' of movement. Did I bring my horse to a stop to do the lance attack and then yell, "giddy up," and go another 20'? Nope... I moved 60'. We just break that up and do an attack in the middle. Similarly, a monk who is runnning across these surfaces does not stop to attack. He's hitting as he passes.

[nickl_2000]

I asked JC on this one just to see if I could get an official ruling

My question
@JeremyECrawford With the Monks 9th levels ability to walk on water. Can they do this over multiple turns, or if they end their turn on top of water, do they sink?

Can a monk attack someone in the middle of their movement on top of the water without sinking in?


His Answer
The monk's Unarmored Movement feature lets you move across liquids, but it doesn't give you the ability to stop on a liquid surface without sinking. #DnD



Not sure that really clears all that much up. I suppose it implies that if you either attack or end your turn on top of water you sink in, but it would have been nice to have a clearer answer

[Coffee_Dragon]

Welp, par for the course. Depending on how you look at it we're worse off than before.

Since he tuned out or ignored the part of the question with multiple turns, maybe he's saying that as long as you don't fluff the monk as stopping between turns (why should you?) you can keep running forever, which is almost nobody's interpretation, but I guess could be the intention.

Since he tuned out or ignored the part of the question with attacking, maybe he's saying you sink/fall as soon as you try to do anything but moving from one square/cube into the next, or maybe he's saying that you sink only if you want to, logically must, or are forced by the DM to fluff the monk as stopping, but you are otherwise free to do stuff and not sink.

We kinda don't know because as usual he appears to identify the core of the question with laser accuracy and skirt that core with sublime precision.

As in the lance example it would be pretty odd if you had to go, "OK, I Dash at him across the water like a human water-stomping bullet and use Charger to... no, wait, as soon as I reach the last square before shoving I somehow lose all of the momentum I was going to use for my charge and plunge straight down, never mind me, blub blub."

[Easy_Lee]

I get the impression Crawford wants to leave this to DM fiat. I get it. But that's not a good way to handle Sage Advice, in my opinion. As I understand it, SA is supposed to be intent, sort of a "this is how I would rule it" posting. We don't know how Crawford would rule this. Assuming he has players, I hope he's more transparent with them.

[Tanarii]

Actually, leaving it to DM fiat, or rather interpreting the rule based on the description of what's going in the game world, makes perfect sense in the context that this is 5e. And not ot miniature battle-mat tactical war games.

It's still a pain in the ass to tho. :smallamused:

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, leaving it to DM fiat, or rather interpreting the rule based on the description of what's going in the game world, makes perfect sense in the context that this is 5e. And not ot miniature battle-mat tactical war games.

It's still a pain in the ass to tho. :smallamused:

In my experience, most D&D players (not necessarily DMs) still prefer to use minis. It helps with visualizing what's going on and keeps everyone in agreement. More importantly, minis are a crucial piece of the game's aesthetic, and some players are all about aesthetics.

Regardless, I don't see how use of minis or the lack thereof could prevent players from explaining how they're attacking without halting their movement. But I do see how Crawford's response could be taken to mean that a monk could cross a great lake on foot as long as he kept running. That may or may not be the intent, but it's certainly not what the text says.

[Arkhios]

Regarding attacks in the middle of your movement: RAW, you don't have to stop moving when you take your Action or Bonus Action as long as you still have movement remaining for your turn. In fact, you can split your movement between all attacks you make on your turn if you want to.

A monk with Extra Attack could move, declare he uses Attack Action and make one attack, move again, make another attack, move again, declare he uses Flurry of Blows and make one FoB attack, move again, make another FoB attack, and move again.

[Coffee_Dragon]

So let's say you're allowed to keep running on water between turns as long as you don't stop in the narrative. However, the limitation to moving this way only on your own turn is incontrovertible. Now, Dissonant Whispers. You have to move, but you're surrounded by space you're not allowed to move on, but you are nominally in the very process of moving on that space. The universe explodes.

[Tanarii]

In my experience, most D&D players (not necessarily DMs) still prefer to use minis. It helps with visualizing what's going on and keeps everyone in agreement. More importantly, minis are a crucial piece of the game's aesthetic, and some players are all about aesthetics.

Regardless, I don't see how use of minis or the lack thereof could prevent players from explaining how they're attacking without halting their movement. But I do see how Crawford's response could be taken to mean that a monk could cross a great lake on foot as long as he kept running. That may or may not be the intent, but it's certainly not what the text says.



Sure. It was a not very good joke about how players using minis on a battle at have a strong tendency to think in terms of rules/action parsing, as opposed to simultaneity of action and in-game description/fiction.

But I absolutely agree that the wording on the ability strongly implies a maximum distance able to be covered of one turn's movement, however far that might be. Even if the monk doesn't intentionally stop at the end of their turn, intending to continue moving on their next turn, she will fall. The RAW requirement is movement on your turn, not "doesn't stop". If they meant that RAI, they needed to be more clear, because "on your turn" is a game word, not a in-game fiction word.

[Luccan]

I'm a mounted knight with a lance. I charge a foe that 40' away from me. That's 40' of movement, then a lance attack, then another 20' of movement. Did I bring my horse to a stop to do the lance attack and then yell, "giddy up," and go another 20'? Nope... I moved 60'. We just break that up and do an attack in the middle. Similarly, a monk who is runnning across these surfaces does not stop to attack. He's hitting as he passes.

I guess I just see running at a guy and delivering a series of punches while passing him as a little cartoonish. If I had a reference from memory (like I do with lance combat displayed in various types of media) I might not feel that way. Not to say it's wrong to allow them to keep moving as long as it's their turn, that's just what first occurred to me when I read the OP.

Edit: Though thinking on it now, how often do you need to run across water to hit someone else standing on the water? I can't imagine it's that common an occurrence. If they're in the water, then you should probably be too to fight them. I'd imagine you're using this in combat because it's faster to cross the stream than to go around it.

[Tanarii]

I guess I just see running at a guy and delivering a series of punches while passing him as a little cartoonish. If I had a reference from memory (like I do with lance combat displayed in various types of media) I might not feel that way. Not to say it's wrong to allow them to keep moving as long as it's their turn, that's just what first occurred to me when I read the OP.
Yeah. A Lance attack then keep moving, or a jump kick, or whatever, would limit the character to one attack in the passing. Unless you want to do it like the gif posted upthread, or some kind of anime-like flurry of blows, or like Big Trouble in Little China where they fence as they fly side by side. If that's the way you want your game to look, it totally fits just fine. And I know plenty of people that want their game to look exactly like that, it's what they're envisioning in their head.

[GKnightBC]

I've always used the concept that all these events in a round happen in the same six second time frame, therefore movement and other effects should also be considered contiguous unless stated otherwise. If a monk runs 30, stops and attacks (you can't engage in combat without pausing to trade blows and parries, etc.) Then moves an additional whatever up a wall/over water, as long as the start of their next turn still has movement, they don't fall. They couldn't run up a wall, attack a foe on the ground, and not fall off. But that's my own ruling as a DM. YRMV.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread Necromancy is disfavored here.