You cannot add a BA part way through the resolution of another Action, so the target immediately drops 5ft again and nothing happens.
Point of clarification: Falling isn't a direct part of the action. Falling would happen after the action resolves. Sure, immediately after. But, after.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Sorry Gerg, you’re just plainly wrong about what RAW is. With as little interpretation as possible, means you don’t imply anything beyond the least amount of interpretation. Your first paragraph is exactly that:
We've got three bits of information: action: "you can move it" distance: "5 feet" destination: "to an unoccupied space"
The narrowest interpretation is: “Move 5ft to an unoccupied space”. If you told any character this, and only this, any horizontal or vertical movement is allowed. This is as close to RAW as you can get (the least interpretation of written language).
The second you start parsing more than that, it becomes RAI, which again can be argued with the rest of your post (you even use the words “interpreted” constantly). But you cannot dispute that RAW allows for vertical movement. Any other links or deeper explanation is literally not part of the argument of RAW vs RAI.
Lastly - who cares? What does 5ft upward movement get you? Literally nothing of value. You cannot add a BA part way through the resolution of another Action, so the target immediately drops 5ft again and nothing happens.
I'm sorry Brewksy, you’re just plainly wrong about how you deal with RAW? And where do you get your one interpretation to rule them all ideas from anyway?
In Sage Advice, we read the following in the section on The Role of Rules: RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
For me I view this as meaning all the text. That's the rules.
What is the context for a combat-related feat which tells us that "... you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space ..."? Those contexts include the 5e rules of combat inclusive of their section on Movement and Position with it's working definition of space as an area. The context can certainly include that the feat has to be achievable by being "practiced in the art of crushing".
We can also consider the context that no other physical feat facilitates vertical movement.
For the 5e participant who is well versed in the rules such as those related to combat inclusive of the section on Movement and Position with it's working definition of space as an area and of other feats, I personally view that (according to your definition) the narrowest interpretation of “move 5ft to an unoccupied space” as “move 5ft to an unoccupied area”. In 5e that's what this means.
I agree with the view "With as little interpretation as possible" and, from a baseline understanding of space as an area, I'd personally consider that it takes more interpretation to conclude that vertical movement is permitted than just to conclude that the movement enabled by being "practiced in the art of crushing" is of being pushed into the area that the target is crushed against.
Sage advice also says that "In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions". To me when "studying what the text says in context" the most straightforward interpretation “Move 5ft to an unoccupied space” within the context of RAW indicates movement to get the target to the area/the space."
I'm making a rules decision of a content in RAW within the context of RAW.
You cannot add a BA part way through the resolution of another Action, so the target immediately drops 5ft again and nothing happens.
Point of clarification: Falling isn't a direct part of the action. Falling would happen after the action resolves. Sure, immediately after. But, after.
I'm having trouble following the two of you, so just to be explicitly clear: it is 100% legal for a character with Extra Attack and the Crusher and Telekinetic feat to do the following, and this is how it will resolve; for simplicity I will assume a grid and a cartesian coordinate system, with the character at 0,0,0 and their enemy at 5,0,0 (coordinates are X, Y, Z, with the third coordinate being vertical; units are feet):
Attack with Maul (and successfully hit), then choose to apply Crusher, moving the target to 5,0,5. The target will immediately fall to 5,0,0, even though the Attack action has not resolved/finished yet.
Apply the Telekinetic feat as a BA to try to lift the target, because you can absolutely use a BA "inside" another action. Assuming the target fails their save, they can be shoved to e.g. 10,0,5 (which is legally "away"); they will immediately fall to 10,0,0 even though the Attack action isn't over yet. The BA is over because that's how Telekinesis works.
Assuming the attacker has movement or Reach (e.g. by being a bugbear), the character can now step to 5,0,0 and attack a second time.
To emphasize that this can happen inside a BA as well, here's the same approach with a Monk that has Crusher (and EA):
First Punch.
Second Punch, because Flurry of Blows has a special rule requiring it to wait for the Attack action to be over before it is legal (which BAs do not in general have).
BA and 1 Ki for Flurry of Blows, First Flurry Punch, which is Third Punch total. Assuming it hits, trigger Crusher.
Crusher movement. The target will fall immediately, even though the BA isn't over.
Second Flurry Punch.
Note: This is assuming some rules from Xanathar's which aren't called out as optional. With nothing but the PHB, a) Falling is never described as happening immediately (and no rate is given for it) and b) the game has no rules for handling simultaneous effects, so the answer becomes that there isn't any RAW on how quickly you fall and it's DM fiat. But Xanathar's not only covers simultaneous effects, it also insists Falling is, with just the PHB and without the Xanathar's optional rules, immediate and instantaneous: you fall as soon as it's possible to fall and you fall the full distance when you do. Regardless of how quickly Falling occurs and regardless of at what rate you Fall, you can splice a BA inside an Action in the same way you can splice Movement into it (you can walk 5 feet, slap someone, walk another 5 feet, slap someone else, and then walk another 5 feet, and all you need is Extra Attack).
Saying that crusher facilitates 5 ft of vertical movement is a far fetched, video game or similar interpretation of the ambiguous text. It's still a valid interpretation for those that may like that style of game.
Details relating to a more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation are yet to be replied tohere.
As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text.
Even if it is a " far fetched, video game or similar interpretation " , how is that relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
Which part of the text do you find unclear? Please be specific.
How is you having a " more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation " relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
"As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text." reads a awful lot like "As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans to homebrew.", because you called out vertical movement in a negative way, despite it not being called out in the text of the feat. That would lead some people to believe you plan to add a homebrewed rule about vertical movement as it relates to this feat.
There is an interview linked earlier in this thread (in post #146 to be specific) with Crawford talking about the intent at the design level. Your interpretation is NOT RAI. Something being RAW does not make it RAI. If it did, there would never be a difference.
In the Dragon Talk, Jeremy Crawford cites exemples of Crusher effect, he never claim it is not intended to have a creature be moved vertically though. He specifically say ''the bludgeoning damage one can move you'' or ''hurled around'' and the feat ''move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space''
We have have him saying about the feat ''it is intended to as generous as the wording implies''
So without a Dev on record saying vertical is not intended to be a valid unocuppied space, it's safe to assume it is.
I posted earlier in the thread the same Dev regarding Open Hand where vertical movement was intended and its a forced movement even more restrictive than what Crusher does. (pushed away vs move)
As Gerg just said, you are taking the second half of that completely out of context. The second half was in the context of it applying to all blunt attacks. And since some such attacks can potentially direct force from any angle, there are situations where someone could be knocked relatively towards the person with the crusher feat. Earlier in this thread, I used the Catapult spell as such an example.
The clear intent is that it is not merely some secondary force triggered by the impact but an extension of the force of the impact, triggered directly, with flexibility as to what could be the triggering cause.
The intent is the moved to be caused by the bludgeoning damage no doubt. But the podcast doesn't says vertical movement is not intended if it's what you were saying
It doesn't say you can't, for instance, crush people through to the other side of prison bars either. All it says is that:
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
In each and every case, a DM can consider a situation and rule on what may be physically possible.
So, you can't move people into an occupied space. Only unoccupied.
as follows:
Yes, thankfully the ambiguous WotC text is clear about that bit. For characters with the crusher feat :
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
We've got three bits of information: action: "you can move it" distance: "5 feet" destination: "to an unoccupied space".
A commonly applied ruling in 5e is that movement distances can work with diagonals can work to allow a 7.07 ft movement to get to the centre of a diagonally adjacent square. We might further transpose this convention in the way it is commonly used with flying and swimming creatures which, for these creatures, allows further movement up and down. For instance, we might imagine a flying creature flying both to a square diagonally while also going diagonally up so as to cover the 8.66 ft distance to get there. All this can be made to fit with interpretations of RAW.
In reference to the destination of an unoccupied space, a creature's space in combat is defined in 5e as "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and "the area it needs to fight effectively". This does not directly relate to vertical distance and DMs may be at liberty to interpret that a typical goliath (at "between 7 and 8 feet tall") may require higher ceiling heights to enable it to effectively fight than might be needed by a typical ("stand well under 5 feet tall") dwarf.
So can one DM interpret that a movement of "5 feet to an unoccupied space" can include a vertical movement? Sure. "5 feet" of movement is mentioned and, by conventions used in flying and swimming, 7.07 ft or 8.66 ft of movement diagonally upwards to a 5 ft height above a space that the creature might occupy could be permitted.
And can another DM interpret that a movement of "5 feet to an unoccupied space" by a creature whose weight isn't countered can't include a vertical movement? Sure. A purpose of movement "to an unoccupied space" can be interpreted and, as a location, 5 ft above the ground can't be occupied by a creature whose weight isn't somehow countered, a DM would be entitled to rule that this would not be a valid destination.
Can a player just decide that their character can use the crusher feat to knock a creature up to one size large than them to a height of 5 ft? No, not without their DM's consent. You're only working on an interpretation.
All we've got on this from Crusher is a text that says:
You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, granting you the following benefits: ...
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you. ...
I've also asked what practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that you can knock a creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
"A 5e human can weigh125 to 250 pounds while a racehorse weighs around 1100 lbs and a shire horse can weigh up to 2000 lbs."
Even though some medium creatures can be a lot lighter than humans and some large creatures are portrayed as being far more chunky than a horse, we can still consider these figures.
What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
One interpretation of the crusher text says that: "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [including vertical movement] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you". Another interpretation says that: "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [just for the purpose of getting it] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you".
Remember, a creature's space in combat is simply defined in 5e as "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and "the area it needs to fight effectively"
"unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC", how do you know which interpretation is intended? How do you know what's RAI?
So it's not ambiguous at all, and given that no one has cited anything else from the designers, there is no reason to believe RAI is anything other than RAW. None of us know what RAI is for certain, and it's certainly possible it is different for each designer. But we have no evidence to support anything other than RAW as a conclusion, and even less to claim that one specific speculation is RAI. So the by far most likely answer is that RAW is RAI. The designers have had plenty of time to state otherwise, and have chosen not to. The thing they did choose to do, is write what is in the book. ...
Incorrect. We can refer to linguists/grammar specialists if you like but they will confirm that the text is ambiguous.
ADD to that WotC's working definition of a space as meaning an area and I think that the interpretation of the RAW text that I'm working with is the more likely correct one.
The designers have also had plenty of time to say that crusher could be used to produce vertical movement but have not. Your logic could equally be used to indicate that my straightforward interpretation to be correct.
... "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [including vertical movement] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you" ...
"when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [just for the purpose of getting it] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you".
Same as the words I added here, the words are added to clearly indicate that there are at least these two possible interpretations of an ambiguous text.
Is the "for the purpose" interpretation a valid reading of the text? If you don't think so, why not?
... The words you added do not add any options that did not already exist. Vertical movement is already possible, as is horizontal and diagonal, as long as it is not more than 5', & it is to a space that is not currently occupied....
Whether the "[including vertical movement]" words I added, add to existing options depends on the working definition of space that the writers had in mind when formulating the rule. If, according to WotC's Combat rules on Movement and Position, they were working with their definition of a space is defined as an area, then all that is immediately is a movement "to an unoccupied space".
... "What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?"
Irrelevant. The rules state that it can be done, so it can be done. You may feel that the feat can be unrealistic, or silly, or whatever, but that does not change the fact that it is still a rule in the game. This applies as a counter to a lot of what you write. You add in requirements that are not in the text, and then use what you added as justification for why the feat doesn't work as written. There are no weight maximums, no requirement to state how the target's weight is countered, or anything else other than what is written in the rules. ...
You fail to provide any rational explanation as to how your interpretation of the feat is supposed to work, which leads me to believe that your interpretation is not RAI.
I do not think that the writers at WotC are such morons that they would write a feat in such a way that it cannot fit with any rational justification. I'd prefer to think that your interpretation of the text was not one that they intended.
Nonetheless, you still have a working interpretation of the form of words actually used and, while I doubt that your interpretation fits with RAI, it should, for now, be enough for a table willing to accept it.
... And It doesn't matter how a creature's space is defined, as by the definition of unoccupied space, the target is not being moved into or thru a creature's space.
I think that this is pretty central to the argument. The target is being moved "to an unoccupied space".
The text isn't written to say something such as that "you can move it 5 feet to [an] unoccupied space" but that "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". The text describes something specific. This leads me to conclude that they are likely using their Combat rules on Movement and Position, working definition space an area. That's the kind of thing it's being moved to.
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
You keep saying the feat is worded ambiguously, but never state which words or set of words you are unsure about. So again, please be specific. Which word(s), and what makes you believe they mean something other than what's printed in a dictionary or the 5E rules?
That's not just WotC's definition. Most any dictionary would state that "space" and "area" are similar, if not identical, in most uses.
Neither of your examples with words added to the feat add any new ability or meaning to the feat, they are simply less concise. At best, you're explicitly stating something that is already implicit.
All of your "I'd prefer to think" statements are just your opinion. That has no basis on what is RAW or RAI (again, unless you're one of the devs that worked on the feat). It's just you making things up or guessing what you think the devs intended (but have no evidence of). Which is fine for homebrew, but that ain't this.
The target is moving to a unoccupied space, which is by definition, not a creature's space, therefore the definition of a creature's space is irrelevant. If you've got a rulebook definition of plain old "space" or "unoccupied space", then that would be relevant. Once you add on "creature's" to "space", it is no longer what the feat refers to.
"No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action."
You cannot add a BA part way through the resolution of another Action, so the target immediately drops 5ft again and nothing happens.
Point of clarification: Falling isn't a direct part of the action. Falling would happen after the action resolves. Sure, immediately after. But, after.
I'm having trouble following the two of you, so just to be explicitly clear: it is 100% legal for a character with Extra Attack and the Crusher and Telekinetic feat to do the following, and this is how it will resolve; for simplicity I will assume a grid and a cartesian coordinate system, with the character at 0,0,0 and their enemy at 5,0,0 (coordinates are X, Y, Z, with the third coordinate being vertical; units are feet):
Attack with Maul (and successfully hit), then choose to apply Crusher, moving the target to 5,0,5. The target will immediately fall to 5,0,0, even though the Attack action has not resolved/finished yet.
Apply the Telekinetic feat as a BA to try to lift the target, because you can absolutely use a BA "inside" another action. Assuming the target fails their save, they can be shoved to e.g. 10,0,5 (which is legally "away"); they will immediately fall to 10,0,0 even though the Attack action isn't over yet. The BA is over because that's how Telekinesis works.
Assuming the attacker has movement or Reach (e.g. by being a bugbear), the character can now step to 5,0,0 and attack a second time.
To emphasize that this can happen inside a BA as well, here's the same approach with a Monk that has Crusher (and EA):
First Punch.
Second Punch, because Flurry of Blows has a special rule requiring it to wait for the Attack action to be over before it is legal (which BAs do not in general have).
BA and 1 Ki for Flurry of Blows, First Flurry Punch, which is Third Punch total. Assuming it hits, trigger Crusher.
Crusher movement. The target will fall immediately, even though the BA isn't over.
Second Flurry Punch.
Note: This is assuming some rules from Xanathar's which aren't called out as optional. With nothing but the PHB, a) Falling is never described as happening immediately (and no rate is given for it) and b) the game has no rules for handling simultaneous effects, so the answer becomes that there isn't any RAW on how quickly you fall and it's DM fiat. But Xanathar's not only covers simultaneous effects, it also insists Falling is, with just the PHB and without the Xanathar's optional rules, immediate and instantaneous: you fall as soon as it's possible to fall and you fall the full distance when you do. Regardless of how quickly Falling occurs and regardless of at what rate you Fall, you can splice a BA inside an Action in the same way you can splice Movement into it (you can walk 5 feet, slap someone, walk another 5 feet, slap someone else, and then walk another 5 feet, and all you need is Extra Attack).
No, you can’t splice a BA *inside* an Action. Everything gets resolved - if you walk off a ledge, *you fall*. If different actions during combat were allowed to be spliced, you could then decide to move out off of a ledge, and before you fall, action attack someone across the gap, and bonus action telekinetic slide yourself back onto the ledge. Does that sound RAW or RAI to you? Because if you can hit a target before it falls from the air, then you have to believe that you can do any action before falling on your own turn too.
Falling is resolved after the action resolved. The action was Attack.
You rolled hit already, before the fall.
You rolled bludgeoning damage already, before the fall.
You move the target 5' now, again, this is before the fall. And is the last part of the action to resolve, so the action is over.
They fall. They fall because they're not on the ground. This is not a function of your action. You are not causing them to fall. Gravity is doing that. It resolves AFTER your action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Falling is resolved after the action resolved. The action was Attack.
You rolled hit already, before the fall.
You rolled bludgeoning damage already, before the fall.
You move the target 5' now, again, this is before the fall. And is the last part of the action to resolve, so the action is over.
They fall. They fall because they're not on the ground. This is not a function of your action. You are not causing them to fall. Gravity is doing that. It resolves AFTER your action.
I believe they used the context of Extra Attack: 2 attacks with a single action. If the first attack pushes the creature over an edge, the creature falls immediately, before the 2nd attack i.e before the Attack action is resolved.
@quindraco
As others have replied, bonus actions cannot generally be inserted inside an action, unless it specifically states otherwise.
The Shield Master feat allows you to use a bonus action to shove a creature if you take the Attack action. This means the BA shove can only be used after the Attack action is fully resolved (the game is based around actions, not intentions).
Other abilities provide you with BAs that can be used after attacks (not the Attack action). These can be inserted inside the Attack action.
I'm in a hurry so unfortunately I don't have time to supply my comment with relevant rule quotes.
Falling is resolved after the action resolved. The action was Attack.
You rolled hit already, before the fall.
You rolled bludgeoning damage already, before the fall.
You move the target 5' now, again, this is before the fall. And is the last part of the action to resolve, so the action is over.
They fall. They fall because they're not on the ground. This is not a function of your action. You are not causing them to fall. Gravity is doing that. It resolves AFTER your action.
I believe they used the context of Extra Attack: 2 attacks with a single action. If the first attack pushes the creature over an edge, the creature falls immediately, before the 2nd attack i.e before the Attack action is resolved.
No, this would be up to the person whose turn it is. If multiple events would happen simultaneously they determine the order they're resolved.
@quindraco
As others have replied, bonus actions cannot generally be inserted inside an action, unless it specifically states otherwise.
Nothing in the rules says this. It seems to be the popular opinion on these here boards but the rules text says otherwise.
"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified"
This is the general rule that says otherwise. You choose when. Nothing ambiguous about that.
If a fall can interrupt an action so can anything else, especially something that says you choose when it happens. I mean, straight black and white it says "you choose when".
The Shield Master feat allows you to use a bonus action to shove a creature if you take the Attack action. This means the BA shove can only be used after the Attack action is fully resolved (the game is based around actions, not intentions).
Naw. Again, you choose when.
Other abilities provide you with BAs that can be used after attacks (not the Attack action). These can be inserted inside the Attack action.
I'm in a hurry so unfortunately I don't have time to supply my comment with relevant rule quotes.
People have a surprising amount of control over their own turn, believe it or not. Since that is their window to meaningfully interact with the game world while in combat, that sorta makes sense. Any ruling that interferes with the player's authority over their turn should be implemented with care. Let your players actually control their turn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If different actions during combat were allowed to be spliced, you could then decide to move out off of a ledge, and before you fall, action attack someone across the gap, and bonus action telekinetic slide yourself back onto the ledge. Does that sound RAW or RAI to you?
Yes.
Well, aside from the TK yourself bit, it can't move you. Maybe a BA mistystep? That'd be awesome.
Because if you can hit a target before it falls from the air, then you have to believe that you can do any action before falling on your own turn too.
Of course you can.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Saying that crusher facilitates 5 ft of vertical movement is a far fetched, video game or similar interpretation of the ambiguous text. It's still a valid interpretation for those that may like that style of game.
Details relating to a more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation are yet to be replied tohere.
As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text.
Even if it is a " far fetched, video game or similar interpretation " , how is that relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
Which part of the text do you find unclear? Please be specific.
How is you having a " more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation " relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
"As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text." reads a awful lot like "As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans to homebrew.", because you called out vertical movement in a negative way, despite it not being called out in the text of the feat. That would lead some people to believe you plan to add a homebrewed rule about vertical movement as it relates to this feat.
There is an interview linked earlier in this thread (in post #146 to be specific) with Crawford talking about the intent at the design level. Your interpretation is NOT RAI. Something being RAW does not make it RAI. If it did, there would never be a difference.
In the Dragon Talk, Jeremy Crawford cites exemples of Crusher effect, he never claim it is not intended to have a creature be moved vertically though. He specifically say ''the bludgeoning damage one can move you'' or ''hurled around'' and the feat ''move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space''
We have have him saying about the feat ''it is intended to as generous as the wording implies''
So without a Dev on record saying vertical is not intended to be a valid unocuppied space, it's safe to assume it is.
I posted earlier in the thread the same Dev regarding Open Hand where vertical movement was intended and its a forced movement even more restrictive than what Crusher does. (pushed away vs move)
As Gerg just said, you are taking the second half of that completely out of context. The second half was in the context of it applying to all blunt attacks. And since some such attacks can potentially direct force from any angle, there are situations where someone could be knocked relatively towards the person with the crusher feat. Earlier in this thread, I used the Catapult spell as such an example.
The clear intent is that it is not merely some secondary force triggered by the impact but an extension of the force of the impact, triggered directly, with flexibility as to what could be the triggering cause.
The intent is the moved to be caused by the bludgeoning damage no doubt. But the podcast doesn't says vertical movement is not intended if it's what you were saying
It doesn't say you can't, for instance, crush people through to the other side of prison bars either. All it says is that:
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
In each and every case, a DM can consider a situation and rule on what may be physically possible.
So, you can't move people into an occupied space. Only unoccupied.
as follows:
Yes, thankfully the ambiguous WotC text is clear about that bit. For characters with the crusher feat :
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
We've got three bits of information: action: "you can move it" distance: "5 feet" destination: "to an unoccupied space".
A commonly applied ruling in 5e is that movement distances can work with diagonals can work to allow a 7.07 ft movement to get to the centre of a diagonally adjacent square. We might further transpose this convention in the way it is commonly used with flying and swimming creatures which, for these creatures, allows further movement up and down. For instance, we might imagine a flying creature flying both to a square diagonally while also going diagonally up so as to cover the 8.66 ft distance to get there. All this can be made to fit with interpretations of RAW.
In reference to the destination of an unoccupied space, a creature's space in combat is defined in 5e as "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and "the area it needs to fight effectively". This does not directly relate to vertical distance and DMs may be at liberty to interpret that a typical goliath (at "between 7 and 8 feet tall") may require higher ceiling heights to enable it to effectively fight than might be needed by a typical ("stand well under 5 feet tall") dwarf.
So can one DM interpret that a movement of "5 feet to an unoccupied space" can include a vertical movement? Sure. "5 feet" of movement is mentioned and, by conventions used in flying and swimming, 7.07 ft or 8.66 ft of movement diagonally upwards to a 5 ft height above a space that the creature might occupy could be permitted.
And can another DM interpret that a movement of "5 feet to an unoccupied space" by a creature whose weight isn't countered can't include a vertical movement? Sure. A purpose of movement "to an unoccupied space" can be interpreted and, as a location, 5 ft above the ground can't be occupied by a creature whose weight isn't somehow countered, a DM would be entitled to rule that this would not be a valid destination.
Can a player just decide that their character can use the crusher feat to knock a creature up to one size large than them to a height of 5 ft? No, not without their DM's consent. You're only working on an interpretation.
All we've got on this from Crusher is a text that says:
You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, granting you the following benefits: ...
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you. ...
I've also asked what practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that you can knock a creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
"A 5e human can weigh125 to 250 pounds while a racehorse weighs around 1100 lbs and a shire horse can weigh up to 2000 lbs."
Even though some medium creatures can be a lot lighter than humans and some large creatures are portrayed as being far more chunky than a horse, we can still consider these figures.
What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
One interpretation of the crusher text says that: "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [including vertical movement] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you". Another interpretation says that: "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [just for the purpose of getting it] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you".
Remember, a creature's space in combat is simply defined in 5e as "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and "the area it needs to fight effectively"
"unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC", how do you know which interpretation is intended? How do you know what's RAI?
So it's not ambiguous at all, and given that no one has cited anything else from the designers, there is no reason to believe RAI is anything other than RAW. None of us know what RAI is for certain, and it's certainly possible it is different for each designer. But we have no evidence to support anything other than RAW as a conclusion, and even less to claim that one specific speculation is RAI. So the by far most likely answer is that RAW is RAI. The designers have had plenty of time to state otherwise, and have chosen not to. The thing they did choose to do, is write what is in the book. ...
Incorrect. We can refer to linguists/grammar specialists if you like but they will confirm that the text is ambiguous.
ADD to that WotC's working definition of a space as meaning an area and I think that the interpretation of the RAW text that I'm working with is the more likely correct one.
The designers have also had plenty of time to say that crusher could be used to produce vertical movement but have not. Your logic could equally be used to indicate that my straightforward interpretation to be correct.
... "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [including vertical movement] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you" ...
"when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [just for the purpose of getting it] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you".
Same as the words I added here, the words are added to clearly indicate that there are at least these two possible interpretations of an ambiguous text.
Is the "for the purpose" interpretation a valid reading of the text? If you don't think so, why not?
... The words you added do not add any options that did not already exist. Vertical movement is already possible, as is horizontal and diagonal, as long as it is not more than 5', & it is to a space that is not currently occupied....
Whether the "[including vertical movement]" words I added, add to existing options depends on the working definition of space that the writers had in mind when formulating the rule. If, according to WotC's Combat rules on Movement and Position, they were working with their definition of a space is defined as an area, then all that is immediately is a movement "to an unoccupied space".
... "What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?"
Irrelevant. The rules state that it can be done, so it can be done. You may feel that the feat can be unrealistic, or silly, or whatever, but that does not change the fact that it is still a rule in the game. This applies as a counter to a lot of what you write. You add in requirements that are not in the text, and then use what you added as justification for why the feat doesn't work as written. There are no weight maximums, no requirement to state how the target's weight is countered, or anything else other than what is written in the rules. ...
You fail to provide any rational explanation as to how your interpretation of the feat is supposed to work, which leads me to believe that your interpretation is not RAI.
I do not think that the writers at WotC are such morons that they would write a feat in such a way that it cannot fit with any rational justification. I'd prefer to think that your interpretation of the text was not one that they intended.
Nonetheless, you still have a working interpretation of the form of words actually used and, while I doubt that your interpretation fits with RAI, it should, for now, be enough for a table willing to accept it.
... And It doesn't matter how a creature's space is defined, as by the definition of unoccupied space, the target is not being moved into or thru a creature's space.
I think that this is pretty central to the argument. The target is being moved "to an unoccupied space".
The text isn't written to say something such as that "you can move it 5 feet to [an] unoccupied space" but that "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". The text describes something specific. This leads me to conclude that they are likely using their Combat rules on Movement and Position, working definition space an area. That's the kind of thing it's being moved to.
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
You keep saying the feat is worded ambiguously, but never state which words or set of words you are unsure about. So again, please be specific. Which word(s), and what makes you believe they mean something other than what's printed in a dictionary or the 5E rules? ...
You keep wanting to isolate texts and take them out of context, now to the extent that you demand others to do the same.
I "keep saying the feat is worded ambiguously" with the wider set of the wording of the feat within the context of RAW being ambiguous.
As I stated: In Sage Advice, we read the following in the section on The Role of Rules: RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
You ask "Which word(s), and what makes you believe they mean something other than what's printed in a dictionary or the 5E rules?"
It's here where you get things wrong. A general dictionary definition of a term is superseded by specific definitions of terms as provided within 5e rules.
... That's not just WotC's definition. Most any dictionary would state that "space" and "area" are similar, if not identical, in most uses. ...
Great, then we can keep hold of those specific definitions of space that the dictionary and 5e combat rules define identically and dump the rest.
As I previously stated in a reply to you:
The text isn't written to say something such as that "you can move it 5 feet to [an] unoccupied space" but that "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". The text describes something specific. This leads me to conclude that they are likely using their Combat rules on Movement and Position, working definition space an area. That's the kind of thing it's being moved to.
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
You say "Most any dictionary would state that "space" and "area" are similar, if not identical, in most uses." Great, then we can easily dump the remaining content within the general dictionary definition of space and stick with the specific definition as used in 5e combat.
... Neither of your examples with words added to the feat add any new ability or meaning to the feat, they are simply less concise. At best, you're explicitly stating something that is already implicit. ...
No, I'm advocating an interpretation of the feat that does not add an ability for facilitating vertical movement that no other physical combat feat has. I was not aiming for them to be concise. I was aiming for them to be explicit so as to remove ambiguity. You suggest that meanings of the text are "already implicit", yet two very different interpretations of the text are being discussed.
You fail to provide any rational explanation as to how your interpretation of the feat is supposed to work, which leads me to believe that your interpretation is not RAI.
I do not think that the writers at WotC are such morons that they would write a feat in such a way that it cannot fit with any rational justification. I'd prefer to think that your interpretation of the text was not one that they intended.
... All of your "I'd prefer to think" statements are just your opinion. That has no basis on what is RAW or RAI (again, unless you're one of the devs that worked on the feat). It's just you making things up or guessing what you think the devs intended (but have no evidence of). Which is fine for homebrew, but that ain't this. ...
Yes, "I'd prefer to think" ... "that the writers at WotC are [not]... morons". I'd say that it was more of a working hypothesis than an opinion but one based on reasonable evidence.
In context, this was in relation to my having said:
... All we've got on this from Crusher is a text that says:
You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, granting you the following benefits: ...
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you. ...
I've also asked what practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that you can knock a creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
"A 5e human can weigh125 to 250 pounds while a racehorse weighs around 1100 lbs and a shire horse can weigh up to 2000 lbs."
Even though some medium creatures can be a lot lighter than humans and some large creatures are portrayed as being far more chunky than a horse, we can still consider these figures.
What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick? ...
Given Save Advice regarding "studying what the text says in context" I have to ask, what outcomes of the crusher feat could be achieved via "practice in the art of crushing"? Can, for instance, "practice in the art of crushing" enable a 125 to 250 pound creature (100 to 145 pounds if your character has the Slender and Graceful frame of an elf) to knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick? I'd rule no.
... The target is moving to a unoccupied space, which is by definition, not a creature's space, therefore the definition of a creature's space is irrelevant. If you've got a rulebook definition of plain old "space" or "unoccupied space", then that would be relevant. Once you add on "creature's" to "space", it is no longer what the feat refers to.
On what do you base your opinion? It's talking about an unoccupied area/space? It's talking about a kind of area/space that could be occupied but, at the time, is unoccupied. When you move a creature to that area/space it would then be occupied. The creature is being moved from one area/space to another area/space.
There is an exception if that telekinetic slide was useable as a reaction. If you added a feather fall in there, it might well be possible to achieve, if the BA slide did not involve casting a levelled spell
I don't think there is any way to use Telekinetic as a reaction, nor can you Ready it since it's a unique bonus action. If such exception existed, it would also require falling to explicitly be part of the trigger.
If different actions during combat were allowed to be spliced, you could then decide to move out off of a ledge, and before you fall, action attack someone across the gap, and bonus action telekinetic slide yourself back onto the ledge. Does that sound RAW or RAI to you?
Yes.
Well, aside from the TK yourself bit, it can't move you. Maybe a BA mistystep? That'd be awesome.
Absolutely you can splice actions in combat.
For instance, if you have a wing born flying character and someone casts web on you, can make a dexterity saving throw at the start of your turn to attempt not to be restrained and, if necessary, make a strength check as an action to escape any restraint.
Absolutely agree. There are lots of awesome things you can do.
Falling is resolved after the action resolved. The action was Attack.
You rolled hit already, before the fall.
You rolled bludgeoning damage already, before the fall.
You move the target 5' now, again, this is before the fall. And is the last part of the action to resolve, so the action is over.
They fall. They fall because they're not on the ground. This is not a function of your action. You are not causing them to fall. Gravity is doing that. It resolves AFTER your action.
I believe they used the context of Extra Attack: 2 attacks with a single action. If the first attack pushes the creature over an edge, the creature falls immediately, before the 2nd attack i.e before the Attack action is resolved.
No, this would be up to the person whose turn it is. If multiple events would happen simultaneously they determine the order they're resolved.
You are referring to the optional rule in Xanathar's found just above the optional falling rule that states that a creature falls to the ground immediately.
@quindraco
As others have replied, bonus actions cannot generally be inserted inside an action, unless it specifically states otherwise.
Nothing in the rules says this. It seems to be the popular opinion on these here boards but the rules text says otherwise.
"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified"
This is the general rule that says otherwise. You choose when. Nothing ambiguous about that.
If you believe that a bonus action can be used within an action without the specific BA stating a timing that allows this, do you also believe that it is possible to interrupt a reaction with a bonus action on your own turn?
The Shield Master feat allows you to use a bonus action to shove a creature if you take the Attack action. This means the BA shove can only be used after the Attack action is fully resolved (the game is based around actions, not intentions).
Naw. Again, you choose when.
What makes you say that the general rule for bonus actions (no matter your interpretation of it) overrules the specific wording in the Shield Master feat? Specific trumps general, no?
JC did rule on the Shield Master feat that you would have to wait until the action is over to use the shove....I personally think that is a huge crock of horse shit and do not play it that way personally but that is the RAW/RAI....I believe it made it into an Errata as well?
JC did rule on the Shield Master feat that you would have to wait until the action is over to use the shove....I personally think that is a huge crock of horse shit and do not play it that way personally but that is the RAW/RAI....I believe it made it into an Errata as well?
But it did get an official ruling in Sage Advice Compendium
The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.
Falling is resolved after the action resolved. The action was Attack.
There's no rule saying that. The contrary is written though. DM can always rule otherwise.
There is no rule that says a fall interrupts your action. There is a rule that says that WHEN you do fall that fall DISTANCE is covered instantaneously. But nothing says the fall STARTS immediately. Thinking it says that is a collective fever dream.
Read it, under the rule heading RATE of Fall:
The rule for falling assumes that a creature immediately drops the entire distance when it falls.
When it falls. Then the whole distance immediately.
This says NOTHING about when the fall starts.
And, when it is your turn, you determine the order of simultaneous effects:
Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.
So if it is your turn, and something might fall DURING your action, YOU decide if it happens in the middle of the action and gets resolved first or if it goes after your action finishes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You are referring to the optional rule in Xanathar's found just above the optional falling rule that states that a creature falls to the ground immediately.
Sure. Optional. Though, we've been doing this at my tables since before Xanathars even printed because you have to have a way to determine simultaneous events and whoever's turn it is is in charge of their turn. You could ignore this "optional" rule but then you're left with the inability to RAW determine how to handle simultaneous events because this is the only written guidance on it.
If you believe that a bonus action can be used within an action without the specific BA stating a timing that allows this, do you also believe that it is possible to interrupt a reaction with a bonus action on your own turn?
Potentially. Most reactions are instantaneous and not a multi-sequence event though so I doubt this would come up often. You got some sort of long drawn out multi-stage reaction in mind?
What makes you say that the general rule for bonus actions (no matter your interpretation of it) overrules the specific wording in the Shield Master feat? Specific trumps general, no?
Shield Master doesn't say what you're saying it says. There is nothing contradictory there. Even the Sage Advice on Shield Master doesn't say what people claim it says.
Really it doesn't. Read it again and look for what you're claiming it says. Find where it says you can't BA shove after you make one attack only. Find where it even talks about attacks at all. Not "attack action"... attacks. It doesn't:
The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.
This at no point says you cant BA shove in the middle of an attack action. If you're in the middle of the action, you're absolutelytaking it. Which is the only requirement here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The rule for falling assumes that a creature immediately drops the entire distance when it falls.
When it falls. Then the whole distance immediately.
This says NOTHING about when the fall starts.
"imemdiately drop" says it. It's a timing, not a duration. You've been told this several time already. Also;
RAI
@JeremyECrawford The basic falling rules in D&D assume a fall is instantaneous. If you'd like rules for a very long fall, take a look at the section called "Falling" in "Xanathar's Guide to Everything" (p. 77).
RAW
XGtE Falling: When you fall from a great height, you instantly descend up to 500 feet.
The rule for falling assumes that a creature immediately drops the entire distance when it falls.
When it falls. Then the whole distance immediately.
This says NOTHING about when the fall starts.
"imemdiately drop" says it. It's a timing, not a duration. You've been told this several time already. Also;
RAI
@JeremyECrawford The basic falling rules in D&D assume a fall is instantaneous. If you'd like rules for a very long fall, take a look at the section called "Falling" in "Xanathar's Guide to Everything" (p. 77).
RAW
XGtE Falling: When you fall from a great height, you instantly descend up to 500 feet.
You've told me something false several times. Correct.
Everything you quoted is talking about duration of fall. Not onset of fall.
Everything you quote will continue to show that. None of those rules talk about when the falls starts, only how long the fall lasts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Point of clarification: Falling isn't a direct part of the action. Falling would happen after the action resolves. Sure, immediately after. But, after.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm sorry Brewksy, you’re just plainly wrong about how you deal with RAW?
And where do you get your one interpretation to rule them all ideas from anyway?
In Sage Advice, we read the following in the section on The Role of Rules:
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
For me I view this as meaning all the text. That's the rules.
What is the context for a combat-related feat which tells us that "... you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space ..."? Those contexts include the 5e rules of combat inclusive of their section on Movement and Position with it's working definition of space as an area.
The context can certainly include that the feat has to be achievable by being "practiced in the art of crushing".
We can also consider the context that no other physical feat facilitates vertical movement.
For the 5e participant who is well versed in the rules such as those related to combat inclusive of the section on Movement and Position with it's working definition of space as an area and of other feats, I personally view that (according to your definition) the narrowest interpretation of “move 5ft to an unoccupied space” as “move 5ft to an unoccupied area”. In 5e that's what this means.
I agree with the view "With as little interpretation as possible" and, from a baseline understanding of space as an area, I'd personally consider that it takes more interpretation to conclude that vertical movement is permitted than just to conclude that the movement enabled by being "practiced in the art of crushing" is of being pushed into the area that the target is crushed against.
Sage advice also says that "In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions". To me when "studying what the text says in context" the most straightforward interpretation “Move 5ft to an unoccupied space” within the context of RAW indicates movement to get the target to the area/the space."
I'm making a rules decision of a content in RAW within the context of RAW.
I care.
I'm having trouble following the two of you, so just to be explicitly clear: it is 100% legal for a character with Extra Attack and the Crusher and Telekinetic feat to do the following, and this is how it will resolve; for simplicity I will assume a grid and a cartesian coordinate system, with the character at 0,0,0 and their enemy at 5,0,0 (coordinates are X, Y, Z, with the third coordinate being vertical; units are feet):
To emphasize that this can happen inside a BA as well, here's the same approach with a Monk that has Crusher (and EA):
Note: This is assuming some rules from Xanathar's which aren't called out as optional. With nothing but the PHB, a) Falling is never described as happening immediately (and no rate is given for it) and b) the game has no rules for handling simultaneous effects, so the answer becomes that there isn't any RAW on how quickly you fall and it's DM fiat. But Xanathar's not only covers simultaneous effects, it also insists Falling is, with just the PHB and without the Xanathar's optional rules, immediate and instantaneous: you fall as soon as it's possible to fall and you fall the full distance when you do. Regardless of how quickly Falling occurs and regardless of at what rate you Fall, you can splice a BA inside an Action in the same way you can splice Movement into it (you can walk 5 feet, slap someone, walk another 5 feet, slap someone else, and then walk another 5 feet, and all you need is Extra Attack).
You keep saying the feat is worded ambiguously, but never state which words or set of words you are unsure about. So again, please be specific. Which word(s), and what makes you believe they mean something other than what's printed in a dictionary or the 5E rules?
That's not just WotC's definition. Most any dictionary would state that "space" and "area" are similar, if not identical, in most uses.
Neither of your examples with words added to the feat add any new ability or meaning to the feat, they are simply less concise. At best, you're explicitly stating something that is already implicit.
All of your "I'd prefer to think" statements are just your opinion. That has no basis on what is RAW or RAI (again, unless you're one of the devs that worked on the feat). It's just you making things up or guessing what you think the devs intended (but have no evidence of). Which is fine for homebrew, but that ain't this.
The target is moving to a unoccupied space, which is by definition, not a creature's space, therefore the definition of a creature's space is irrelevant. If you've got a rulebook definition of plain old "space" or "unoccupied space", then that would be relevant. Once you add on "creature's" to "space", it is no longer what the feat refers to.
"No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action."
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995024061267767298
Has there been errata since the tweet changing this?
No, you can’t splice a BA *inside* an Action. Everything gets resolved - if you walk off a ledge, *you fall*. If different actions during combat were allowed to be spliced, you could then decide to move out off of a ledge, and before you fall, action attack someone across the gap, and bonus action telekinetic slide yourself back onto the ledge. Does that sound RAW or RAI to you? Because if you can hit a target before it falls from the air, then you have to believe that you can do any action before falling on your own turn too.
Falling is resolved after the action resolved. The action was Attack.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I believe they used the context of Extra Attack: 2 attacks with a single action. If the first attack pushes the creature over an edge, the creature falls immediately, before the 2nd attack i.e before the Attack action is resolved.
@quindraco
As others have replied, bonus actions cannot generally be inserted inside an action, unless it specifically states otherwise.
The Shield Master feat allows you to use a bonus action to shove a creature if you take the Attack action. This means the BA shove can only be used after the Attack action is fully resolved (the game is based around actions, not intentions).
Other abilities provide you with BAs that can be used after attacks (not the Attack action). These can be inserted inside the Attack action.
I'm in a hurry so unfortunately I don't have time to supply my comment with relevant rule quotes.
No, this would be up to the person whose turn it is. If multiple events would happen simultaneously they determine the order they're resolved.
Nothing in the rules says this. It seems to be the popular opinion on these here boards but the rules text says otherwise.
"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified"
This is the general rule that says otherwise. You choose when. Nothing ambiguous about that.
If a fall can interrupt an action so can anything else, especially something that says you choose when it happens. I mean, straight black and white it says "you choose when".
Naw. Again, you choose when.
People have a surprising amount of control over their own turn, believe it or not. Since that is their window to meaningfully interact with the game world while in combat, that sorta makes sense. Any ruling that interferes with the player's authority over their turn should be implemented with care. Let your players actually control their turn.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes.
Well, aside from the TK yourself bit, it can't move you. Maybe a BA mistystep? That'd be awesome.
Of course you can.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You keep wanting to isolate texts and take them out of context, now to the extent that you demand others to do the same.
I "keep saying the feat is worded ambiguously" with the wider set of the wording of the feat within the context of RAW being ambiguous.
As I stated:
In Sage Advice, we read the following in the section on The Role of Rules:
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
You ask "Which word(s), and what makes you believe they mean something other than what's printed in a dictionary or the 5E rules?"
It's here where you get things wrong. A general dictionary definition of a term is superseded by specific definitions of terms as provided within 5e rules.
Great, then we can keep hold of those specific definitions of space that the dictionary and 5e combat rules define identically and dump the rest.
As I previously stated in a reply to you:
The text isn't written to say something such as that "you can move it 5 feet to [
an] unoccupied space" but that "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". The text describes something specific. This leads me to conclude that they are likely using their Combat rules on Movement and Position, working definition space an area. That's the kind of thing it's being moved to.Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
You say "Most any dictionary would state that "space" and "area" are similar, if not identical, in most uses." Great, then we can easily dump the remaining content within the general dictionary definition of space and stick with the specific definition as used in 5e combat.
No, I'm advocating an interpretation of the feat that does not add an ability for facilitating vertical movement that no other physical combat feat has.
I was not aiming for them to be concise. I was aiming for them to be explicit so as to remove ambiguity. You suggest that meanings of the text are "already implicit", yet two very different interpretations of the text are being discussed.
Yes, "I'd prefer to think" ... "that the writers at WotC are [not]... morons". I'd say that it was more of a working hypothesis than an opinion but one based on reasonable evidence.
In context, this was in relation to my having said:
Given Save Advice regarding "studying what the text says in context" I have to ask, what outcomes of the crusher feat could be achieved via "practice in the art of crushing"? Can, for instance, "practice in the art of crushing" enable a 125 to 250 pound creature (100 to 145 pounds if your character has the Slender and Graceful frame of an elf) to knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick? I'd rule no.
On what do you base your opinion?
It's talking about an unoccupied area/space? It's talking about a kind of area/space that could be occupied but, at the time, is unoccupied. When you move a creature to that area/space it would then be occupied. The creature is being moved from one area/space to another area/space.
The definition given in the rules on Combat in relation to Movement and Position, relates to space.
There's no rule saying that. The contrary is written though. DM can always rule otherwise.
I don't think there is any way to use Telekinetic as a reaction, nor can you Ready it since it's a unique bonus action. If such exception existed, it would also require falling to explicitly be part of the trigger.
Absolutely you can splice actions in combat.
For instance, if you have a wing born flying character and someone casts web on you, can make a dexterity saving throw at the start of your turn to attempt not to be restrained and, if necessary, make a strength check as an action to escape any restraint.
Absolutely agree. There are lots of awesome things you can do.
You are referring to the optional rule in Xanathar's found just above the optional falling rule that states that a creature falls to the ground immediately.
If you believe that a bonus action can be used within an action without the specific BA stating a timing that allows this, do you also believe that it is possible to interrupt a reaction with a bonus action on your own turn?
What makes you say that the general rule for bonus actions (no matter your interpretation of it) overrules the specific wording in the Shield Master feat? Specific trumps general, no?
JC did rule on the Shield Master feat that you would have to wait until the action is over to use the shove....I personally think that is a huge crock of horse shit and do not play it that way personally but that is the RAW/RAI....I believe it made it into an Errata as well?
Shield Master didn't get any errata https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf
But it did get an official ruling in Sage Advice Compendium
There is no rule that says a fall interrupts your action. There is a rule that says that WHEN you do fall that fall DISTANCE is covered instantaneously. But nothing says the fall STARTS immediately. Thinking it says that is a collective fever dream.
Read it, under the rule heading RATE of Fall:
When it falls. Then the whole distance immediately.
This says NOTHING about when the fall starts.
And, when it is your turn, you determine the order of simultaneous effects:
So if it is your turn, and something might fall DURING your action, YOU decide if it happens in the middle of the action and gets resolved first or if it goes after your action finishes.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Sure. Optional. Though, we've been doing this at my tables since before Xanathars even printed because you have to have a way to determine simultaneous events and whoever's turn it is is in charge of their turn. You could ignore this "optional" rule but then you're left with the inability to RAW determine how to handle simultaneous events because this is the only written guidance on it.
Potentially. Most reactions are instantaneous and not a multi-sequence event though so I doubt this would come up often. You got some sort of long drawn out multi-stage reaction in mind?
Shield Master doesn't say what you're saying it says. There is nothing contradictory there. Even the Sage Advice on Shield Master doesn't say what people claim it says.
Really it doesn't. Read it again and look for what you're claiming it says. Find where it says you can't BA shove after you make one attack only. Find where it even talks about attacks at all. Not "attack action"... attacks. It doesn't:
This at no point says you cant BA shove in the middle of an attack action. If you're in the middle of the action, you're absolutely taking it. Which is the only requirement here.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
"imemdiately drop" says it. It's a timing, not a duration. You've been told this several time already. Also;
RAI
@JeremyECrawford The basic falling rules in D&D assume a fall is instantaneous. If you'd like rules for a very long fall, take a look at the section called "Falling" in "Xanathar's Guide to Everything" (p. 77).
RAW
XGtE Falling: When you fall from a great height, you instantly descend up to 500 feet.
You've told me something false several times. Correct.
Everything you quoted is talking about duration of fall. Not onset of fall.
Everything you quote will continue to show that. None of those rules talk about when the falls starts, only how long the fall lasts.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.