How is movement calculated when running up walls as a monk?

[Man_Over_Game]

Picture this circumstance. I am a 5 foot tall level 9 Wood Elf Monk with Mobile. I have 60 feet of speed per turn, via:


35 feet from Wood Elf feature
10 feet from the Mobile feat
15 feet from being a level 9 monk



And can run on walls via the monk's Unarmored Movement class feature.

I am 15 feet away from a medium sized melee combatant in a 5 foot wide corridor with a 20 foot high ceiling.

Avoiding all attacks of opportunity against me and without using any resources from me (like attacks or Ki) and only the wall movement + speed listed, what is my maximum possible remaining movement to be on the other side of the combatant, out of range, with this setup?

To simplify this, I want to run up the wall, around the guy, without giving him a chance to hit me with his 5 foot range, and still have as much movement possible.

You know, normal Monk things.

My main concern is how the movement starts, and how diagonals work while wall running. Do I spend 5 feet to start "wall running" in the same square I'm in, or do I start by spending 5 feet to be 10 feet in the air? Can I simultaneously move forward while moving up?

Keep in mind that you can drop 5 feet without taking damage and save yourself some movement.




So...what's the minimum amount of movement I need to spend?

[Darc_Vader]

Consider also that you have slow fall to negate up to 45 points of fall damage.
I would say something like:
-5 onto the wall
-10 diagonally up
-20 diagonally up
-25 horizontal (right above enemy)
-30 horizontal
-35 horizontal
-35 slow fall to the ground behind them

[Man_Over_Game]

Consider also that you have slow fall to negate up to 45 points of fall damage.
I would say something like:
-5 onto the wall
-10 diagonally up
-20 diagonally up
-25 horizontal (right above enemy)
-30 horizontal
-35 horizontal
-35 slow fall to the ground behind them

So, in your interpretation, moving diagonally up is the same as moving diagonally across the ground?

Additionally, you'd say that "starting" the movement on the wall costs 5 feet? That is, before moving forward, you must first spend 5 feet of movement, and then you're "on the wall" in the exact position you started?

Not saying you're wrong, but there's a number of key points that need to be targeted to make a consistent result, and I want to see how other DMs do it.

[djreynolds]

I guess it depends where the DM judges that wall ends and ceiling starts.

You run from where you are and up the wall... once the ceiling begins you fall.

If you still have movement left... You can continue on.

[chokfull]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a RAW interpretation that requires 5ft. movement to start running on the wall. It's 100% fair for the DM to rule that way, but I think RAW would simply consider you to be in the same space, regardless of which surface you're on. Then, you can simply take 10ft. of movement to reach 10ft. above ground to be out of range for opportunity attacks.

Diagonal movement depends on the rules you're using. The PHB considers any diagonal movement to take 5ft, IIRC, with correct diagonals being an optional rule.

[Darc_Vader]

So, in your interpretation, moving diagonally up is the same as moving diagonally across the ground?
Yes, it’s how I would count it for climbing, and I don’t see any reason why it should be any more difficult for a monk to do it.

Additionally, you'd say that "starting" the movement on the wall costs 5 feet? That is, before moving forward, you must first spend 5 feet of movement, and then you're "on the wall" in the exact position you started?
This is a little tricker, but I would say yes to that too. If you had a 5 foot tall box, it would make sense to me to say the monk takes 5 feet up and 5 on top to get up it (compared to the 10 feet to climb it + 5 on top for anyone else lacking a climb speed) as opposed to just letting them move as though the ground were level.

Not saying you're wrong, but there's a number of key points that need to be targeted to make a consistent result, and I want to see how other DMs do it.
Fair enough

[Man_Over_Game]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a RAW interpretation that requires 5ft. movement to start running on the wall. It's 100% fair for the DM to rule that way, but I think RAW would simply consider you to be in the same space, regardless of which surface you're on. Then, you can simply take 10ft. of movement to reach 10ft. above ground to be out of range for opportunity attacks.

Diagonal movement depends on the rules you're using. The PHB considers any diagonal movement to take 5ft, IIRC, with correct diagonals being an optional rule.

The way you have that written is kinda confusing. 10 feet up implies that you're still within reach of the enemy creature that's occupying a 5x5x5 cube, as being only 5ft away is enough to provoke an attack of opportunity.

I guess the first thing to identify, right off the bat, is determining the semantics as to how height while moving vertically is identified.

If a Monk is standing on the wall, at the same "height level" as a creature on the ground, is he 5 feet up, or 0?

Alternatively, if that same Monk spends 10 feet to move up the wall, is he:


10 feet up and within the enemy's attack range?
10 feet up and out of the enemy's attack range?
15 feet up and out of the enemy's attack range?

[HPisBS]

If diagonals and the like are tripping you up (get it?🤭), then I'd say visualize the wall as just an extension of the 2D grid. A monk can go diagonally forward-and-up at a rate of 10 ft of squares traveled / 15 ft spent, just like with any other diagonal on the grid.

That would put you 10 ft up while 10 ft forward. Assuming "15 ft away" means you start with two 5-ft spaces in between you, then I'd say starting with diagonal movement might put you around the edge of a medium-sized guy's range before safely getting above him (since he'd be ~ 6 ft tall).

So, if you start by going straight up for 5, then diagonal for 10/15, you'd be at a safe 15 ft height by the time you're right in front of his space. You could then continue straight for your remaining 40 ft (and safely fall down at the end? depending on GM interpretation), thus moving 50 ft forward. Alternatively, spend another 20 ft of diagonal movement to end your turn on the ground, thus moving 45 ft forward.

If you only want to move right past his range, then ↑5, ↗10/15, →10, ↘5, ↓10 (can just "fall") to be back on the ground with a 5 ft square between you, and 15 ft left to spend.

(So a non-mobile human monk can do the same thing at lvl 9, just w/out any speed left over.)



I guess the first thing to identify, right off the bat, is determining the semantics as to how height while moving vertically is identified.

If a Monk is standing on the wall, at the same "height level" as a creature on the ground, is he 5 feet up, or 0?

Alternatively, if that same Monk spends 10 feet to move up the wall, is he:


10 feet up and within the enemy's attack range?
10 feet up and out of the enemy's attack range?
15 feet up and out of the enemy's attack range?


I think we'd all imagine a monk running straight up to have his body kinda angled up \, rather than perpendicular to the ground __. So if he's run 5 ft up, then his feet are ~ chest-level with a medium creature on the ground, but his head is probably a few ft higher.

That last part may be the most important part of the question; I'd consider 10 ft up to be within a medium creature's range. Wouldn't you say that if it were a flying harpy or what have you?

[iTreeby]

You could probably cheat out some extra movement with a long jump. What is your strength score and what is the hight and reach of your medium opponent? If you make a DC 10 athletics check you only have to run up enough feet to clear their reach.

[HPisBS]

Nah. From the Basic Rules:

"each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement."

But falling could count as "forced movement," thus not count against your speed.







'Cuz that makes sense

[iTreeby]

Nah. From the Basic Rules:


But falling could count as "forced movement," thus not count against your speed.







'Cuz that makes sense
182 of the player's handbook disagrees with you.

[HPisBS]

182 of the player's handbook disagrees with you.

afb; how so?

Also, it's not me it'd be disagreeing about jumps with, but the Basic Rules (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring#Jumping) lol

[iTreeby]

The rules for a long jump assume that the hight of the jump does not matter, at the dms option, you must succeed on a dc10 strength athletics check to clear a low obstacle no taller than a quarter of the jumps distance(your strength score) . With an 8 strength, you would be adding 2 free feet from the hight of the jump.

Obviously it would be up to the DM if this was allowed, it's definitely not a stretch to say you can jump out of a wall run, and if they were going to allow it, that's the way the book models it.

[chokfull]

The way you have that written is kinda confusing. 10 feet up implies that you're still within reach of the enemy creature that's occupying a 5x5x5 cube, as being only 5ft away is enough to provoke an attack of opportunity.

I guess the first thing to identify, right off the bat, is determining the semantics as to how height while moving vertically is identified.

If a Monk is standing on the wall, at the same "height level" as a creature on the ground, is he 5 feet up, or 0?

Alternatively, if that same Monk spends 10 feet to move up the wall, is he:


10 feet up and within the enemy's attack range?
10 feet up and out of the enemy's attack range?
15 feet up and out of the enemy's attack range?


I don't really get what's confusing. If you're 5ft off the ground, you're 5ft off the ground. If you're on the ground, you're 0ft off the ground.

If you're 0ft above the ground (or 2.5ft, running on the wall, but it's the same square) you'll collide with the enemy. If you're 5ft up, you'll pass in the square above the enemy and provoke an attack. If you're 10ft up, you're in the second square above the enemy and typically out of reach.

[Zetakya]

Quite a lot of this discussion hinges on whether you consider a creatures placement to be in a 5' cube or on a 5' square tile.

Those who are arguing that it costs movement to move from the floor onto the wall are treating these as adjacent tiles, while those who argue that it doesn't are treating the floor and the wall as merely two surfaces of the same cubic space.

[Samayu]

When it needs to be simplified for the DM or other players, just draw a map of the wall. Now you and your DM only have to decide if it costs a extra 5' of movement to switch from the floor to the wall in the same space, as Zetakya brought up.

I vote that it does. You're not just switching facing, you're switching momentum.

I'm very visually oriented, and good with spatials. I've had to draw some complex diagrams to explain to the DM why I could get to a certain place on the map with my movement. But most floor-to-wall situations should be fairly simple.

[Nagog]

I imagine running on walls to be similar to any other movement, with the 5 foot squares being adjusted accordingly. The question then becomes if your DM allows movement diagonally or not. In my experience, that answer is entirely up to the DM. I allow it, I know some DMs who don't and insist on face to face in the squares you occupy. I understand the typical reason for disallowing it to be calculating Opportunity Attacks, but in the immersion of the game I don't see why a character could not move diagonally (though the calculations could be considered wonky and unfavorable, I don't usually care either way).

Another question you may want to ask, however, is whether or not jumping directly up uses movement in the same way long jumping does. In a similar vein, does walking vertically on the wall start at the base corner of the wall, or at the height of your waist or head? Does your 5 feet of height cut down 5 feet of movement required to go up the wall? In essence, where in the body is the exact point that movement is calculated from? The feet, the center mass, or the head?

[Nagog]

I don't really get what's confusing. If you're 5ft off the ground, you're 5ft off the ground. If you're on the ground, you're 0ft off the ground.

If you're 0ft above the ground (or 2.5ft, running on the wall, but it's the same square) you'll collide with the enemy. If you're 5ft up, you'll pass in the square above the enemy and provoke an attack. If you're 10ft up, you're in the second square above the enemy and typically out of reach.

I think the question being asked here is if the enemy, who is also 5 feet tall, can attack 5 feet up, totaling a range of 10 feet from ground level; Or if for the purposes of targeting like this, the enemy is flat and their 5 foot reach only occupies the 5 feet directly above them. With a range of 5 feet, attacking horizontally doesn't matter, attacking vertically does.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think the question being asked here is if the enemy, who is also 5 feet tall, can attack 5 feet up, totaling a range of 10 feet from ground level; Or if for the purposes of targeting like this, the enemy is flat and their 5 foot reach only occupies the 5 feet directly above them. With a range of 5 feet, attacking horizontally doesn't matter, attacking vertically does.

The other question is, do you occupy a 5x5x5 cube, or do you occupy a 5x5 square on a flat plane?

The difference is, the cube moves fluidly across all directions, while the square must first "slide" onto a new plane to move through it. Mechanically, this is the difference between spending 5 movement to be 10 feet up the wall, or spending 5 movement to be 5 feet up the wall.

Personally, I'm a bigger fan of the cube interpretation, as it promotes more vertical movement, and it is the simpler to implement.

[djreynolds]

AFB, but you can use your BA for step of the wind and still have enough movement to do whatever?