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.
You confuse what immdiately drop means i guess as you are in complete denial. Even when shown the very definition you refute the meaning so i guess everything you say will continue to show that.
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.
You confuse what immdiately drop means i guess as you are in complete denial. Even when shown the very definition you refute the meaning so i guess everything you say will continue to show that.
Immediately, adverb
1. at once; instantly.
2.without any intervening time or space.
For what it's worth I'd consider "immediately drops the entire distance when it falls" to mean all at once. However, that may be immaterial. I think the vertical distance interpretation of crusher is nonsensical.
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.
You confuse what immdiately drop means i guess as you are in complete denial. Even when shown the very definition you refute the meaning so i guess everything you say will continue to show that.
Immediately, adverb
1. at once; instantly.
2.without any intervening time or space.
When.
This word denotes a trigger. When I cast a spell. <--- Would trigger... you know, if I cast a spell.
If I said, "When I cast a spell, I immediately descend up to 500ft" That'd mean I fall up to 500 ft after casting a spell.
So what's this mean?? ---> "When you fall from a great height, you instantly descend up to 500 feet."
When.
When you fall.
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.
I guess one way in which falling in 5e might be rationalised is that it has a quantum mechanics, wave-particle level of duality, It considers that something "immediately drops the entire distance when it falls" yet permits enough time for a reaction and can be considered to span a round of time in cases that falls exceed 500 ft. It takes 200 ft of falling to reach an equivalent of terminal velocity and yet you'll still only fall 500ft on subsequent rounds. I think the system has just been tidied to make it more manageable for DMs in-game.
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.
You confuse what immdiately drop means i guess as you are in complete denial. Even when shown the very definition you refute the meaning so i guess everything you say will continue to show that.
Immediately, adverb
1. at once; instantly.
2.without any intervening time or space.
When.
This word denotes a trigger. When I cast a spell. <--- Would trigger... you know, if I cast a spell.
If I said, "When I cast a spell, I immediately descend up to 500ft" That'd mean I fall up to 500 ft after casting a spell.
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.
We've been over this. Falling is resolved after the attack is resolved, which may be before the action is resolved.
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.
Ugh. I give up. This would never happen at my table - we don’t play Looney Tunes physics.
”You choose when” doesn’t literally mean absolutely any moment in time, even between the Hit and Damage roll of an attack or before someone falls from a height. Same reason you can just walk over gaps by saying “I choose to walk 30ft all at a simultaneous time, therefore clearing the 20ft gap without jumping because falling doesn’t happen immediately, the book doesn’t say when falling occurs so I ignore it until the end of my movement”
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.
We've been over this. Falling is resolved after the attack is resolved, which may be before the action is resolved.
The reality is, you don’t know when falling resolves - nothing says when falling starts. But common sense is that anytime something is at a certain height and can’t fly, it falls.
1) So the only way for your to use Telekinetic after your Crusher Action to push a target up another five feet and therefore force them to fall 10 ft… is if you allow falls only to happen when the player decides he doesn’t have any actions left to chain together (including movement).
2) Or, you play where people fall the moment they are in the air, and then movement and actions don’t have issues.
Both are perfectly acceptable interpretations of the rules I guess. I know I would never play at a table with player controlled physics like #1. To each their own.
I guess one way in which falling in 5e might be rationalised is that it has a quantum mechanics, wave-particle level of duality, It considers that something "immediately drops the entire distance when it falls" yet permits enough time for a reaction and can be considered to span a round of time in cases that falls exceed 500 ft. It takes 200 ft of falling to reach an equivalent of terminal velocity and yet you'll still only fall 500ft on subsequent rounds. I think the system has just been tidied to make it more manageable for DMs in-game.
Yeah. Time in combat is being abstracted. Attempting to understand it linearly is entirely impossible.
If you have 10 participants in combat, they each act in order of their initiative, each taking a turn. These turns represent 6 seconds of time. But, collectively, the entire sequence of all their turns is a round. The entire round represents 6 seconds. How can that be? Because the events on each of these participants turns is happening simultaneously. But, somehow, they also happening in a sequence that was determined based on turns. How can they happen in an ordered sequence but also happen simultaneously? Can't, not if we're trying to hit perfect realism.
But we sacrifice realism for ease of play. We abstract the timeline so that we can each take turns and work through the sequence of events in an orderly gamified way. Because it is a game, with rules and structure to make playing it fun and unpredictable, we give up realism. This isn't a reality simulator. Abstractions on the timing of events is absolutely required.
Trying to process the sequence of 5e combat events in a linear way... and you may as well be trying to figure out which brand of camera is responsible for creating the mona lisa painting.
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.
We've been over this. Falling is resolved after the attack is resolved, which may be before the action is resolved.
The reality is, you don’t know when falling resolves - nothing says when falling starts. But common sense is that anytime something is at a certain height and can’t fly, it falls.
1) So the only way for your to use Telekinetic after your Crusher Action to push a target up another five feet and therefore force them to fall 10 ft… is if you allow falls only to happen when the player decides he doesn’t have any actions left to chain together (including movement).
2) Or, you play where people fall the moment they are in the air, and then movement and actions don’t have issues.
Both are perfectly acceptable interpretations of the rules I guess. I know I would never play at a table with player controlled physics like #1. To each their own.
What, two interpretations of a rule?
Of course, common sense is that a medium creature including those with low strength or those weighing 100 to 145 pounds, such as if your character had the Slender and Graceful frame of an elf, can't knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
If you want further options to bar a 'crusher'- telekinetic interaction you could also invoke the DMG's:
The Player’s Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.
When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.
Crusher and telekinetic would only wield 10 ft of movement, 5ft short of the 15 ft needed to move two squares diagonally.
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.
We've been over this. Falling is resolved after the attack is resolved, which may be before the action is resolved.
The reality is, you don’t know when falling resolves - nothing says when falling starts. But common sense is that anytime something is at a certain height and can’t fly, it falls.
1) So the only way for your to use Telekinetic after your Crusher Action to push a target up another five feet and therefore force them to fall 10 ft… is if you allow falls only to happen when the player decides he doesn’t have any actions left to chain together (including movement).
2) Or, you play where people fall the moment they are in the air, and then movement and actions don’t have issues.
Both are perfectly acceptable interpretations of the rules I guess. I know I would never play at a table with player controlled physics like #1. To each their own.
What, two interpretations of a rule?
Of course, common sense is that a medium creature including those with low strength or those weighing 100 to 145 pounds, such as if your character had the Slender and Graceful frame of an elf, can't knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
If you want further options to bar a 'crusher'- telekinetic interaction you could also invoke the DMG's:
The Player’s Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.
When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.
Crusher and telekinetic would only wield 10 ft of movement, 5ft short of the 15 ft needed to move two squares diagonally.
Reality or DnD pick one...you don't usually get both.
Its silly to think that there is no issue with a wizard putting the soul of a creature in a jar, taking over the creatures body, then having the party move the jar 101 ft away and the creature dies forever and the wizard gets to keep the body.
Thats completely fine but a monk moving something 5ft is just too extreme?
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.
We've been over this. Falling is resolved after the attack is resolved, which may be before the action is resolved.
The reality is, you don’t know when falling resolves - nothing says when falling starts. But common sense is that anytime something is at a certain height and can’t fly, it falls.
1) So the only way for your to use Telekinetic after your Crusher Action to push a target up another five feet and therefore force them to fall 10 ft… is if you allow falls only to happen when the player decides he doesn’t have any actions left to chain together (including movement).
2) Or, you play where people fall the moment they are in the air, and then movement and actions don’t have issues.
Both are perfectly acceptable interpretations of the rules I guess. I know I would never play at a table with player controlled physics like #1. To each their own.
What, two interpretations of a rule?
Of course, common sense is that a medium creature including those with low strength or those weighing 100 to 145 pounds, such as if your character had the Slender and Graceful frame of an elf, can't knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
If you want further options to bar a 'crusher'- telekinetic interaction you could also invoke the DMG's:
The Player’s Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.
When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.
Crusher and telekinetic would only wield 10 ft of movement, 5ft short of the 15 ft needed to move two squares diagonally.
Reality or DnD pick one...you don't usually get both.
Its silly to think that there is no issue with a wizard putting the soul of a creature in a jar, taking over the creatures body, then having the party move the jar 101 ft away and the creature dies forever and the wizard gets to keep the body.
Thats completely fine but a monk moving something 5ft is just too extreme?
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.
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.
It's not wrong, because not every term in the rules has a 5E definition. So readers have to go by the 5e definition, if it exists, or the dictionary definition.
No one is advocating for a interpretation of the feat that does add an ability for facilitating vertical movement that no other physical combat feat has, because it's already there, we don't need to advocate for it, or interpret anything. Move the target 5' to a unoccupied space. Pretty simple as written, not ambiguous at all.
Again, all your references to weight are irrelevant. No part of the feat references the weight of either creature. Homebrew all you want, have fun, but that doesn't change what the designers have written, either as the rule (RAW) or as commentary afterward (RAI). And this is a rules forum.
There's no opinion of mine there. It's all dictionary definitions. You keep linking to "space", but if you read that section of the rules, you'll see that it actually only talks about a creature's space, not space in general or unoccupied space or object's space or outer space or Lost in Space. Just a creature's space. It's a misleading header.
The reality is, you don’t know when falling resolves - nothing says when falling starts. But common sense is that anytime something is at a certain height and can’t fly, it falls.
So how do arrows & javelins & baseball games work at your table? Jumping? Juggling? Moons? I'm pretty sure that in addition to flight & falling, you also allow for momentum. Sometimes even enough for someone to perform a action (or the rest of a Attack action) before the target hits the ground.
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.
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.
It's not wrong, because not every term in the rules has a 5E definition. So readers have to go by the 5e definition, if it exists, or the dictionary definition.
No one is advocating for a interpretation of the feat that does add an ability for facilitating vertical movement that no other physical combat feat has, because it's already there, we don't need to advocate for it, or interpret anything. Move the target 5' to a unoccupied space. Pretty simple as written, not ambiguous at all.
Again, all your references to weight are irrelevant. No part of the feat references the weight of either creature. Homebrew all you want, have fun, but that doesn't change what the designers have written, either as the rule (RAW) or as commentary afterward (RAI). And this is a rules forum.
There's no opinion of mine there. It's all dictionary definitions. You keep linking to "space", but if you read that section of the rules, you'll see that it actually only talks about a creature's space, not space in general or unoccupied space or object's space or outer space or Lost in Space. Just a creature's space. It's a misleading header.
If you got a voucher "for travel, 100 kms to an area in your country" what do you think would happen if you tried to trade in the voucher for travel 100 kms up?
Clearly, the writer of the voucher has made the mistake of writing its wording ambiguously.. and yet there is another very clear interpretation. The travel is intended to be "to an area in your country".
It would be here that we might apply Sage Advice, regarding 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.
The context might become abundantly clear if there was no facility made available for aerial transport, such as would be the logical case that, just by becoming "practiced in the art of crushing" (squeezing something between two sides) a medium creature including those with low strength or those weighing 100 to 145 pounds, such as if your character had the Slender and Graceful frame of an elf, would not naturally be able 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.
Clearly, there is a valid interpretation of the WotC texts that precludes vertical movement and, in the context of both the rules and basic logic, I view it as the more realistic, sensible and rules focussed interpretation of the texts.
If you got a voucher "for travel, 100 kms to an area in your country" what do you think would happen if you tried to trade in the voucher for travel 100 kms up?
Clearly, the writer of the voucher has made the mistake of writing its wording ambiguously.. and yet there is another very clear interpretation. The travel is intended to be "to an area in your country".
It would be here that we might apply Sage Advice, regarding 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.
The context might become abundantly clear if there was no facility made available for aerial transport, such as would be the logical case that, just by becoming "practiced in the art of crushing" (squeezing something between two sides) a medium creature including those with low strength or those weighing 100 to 145 pounds, such as if your character had the Slender and Graceful frame of an elf, would not naturally be able 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.
Clearly, there is a valid interpretation of the WotC texts that precludes vertical movement and, in the context of both the rules and basic logic, I view it as the more realistic, sensible and rules focussed interpretation of the texts.
I still think you are taking that section out of context since it is in the context of how much space any given creature occupies, rather than describing space they do not occupy. There is nothing prohibiting high jumps in combat nor flying in combat. Up is an available direction in combat.
Wherever a creature is at any point in time is where it is. It is not above itself, nor below itself, so of course that definition you are quoting does not mention above or below.
Flying creatures carry their own weight and, if a crusher enabled player hit a creature that was flying, I'd have no objection to that creature being knocked upwards on condition such as that they would continue flying.
Your Strength determines how far you can jump. ... High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In some circumstances, your DM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can. ...
Going back to our 9 strength elf, a valid option for the "you" in the crusher feat. There is no logic to suggest that a character that can only make a standing jump one-foot high could knock an ogre or a horse up to a height of 5 ft.
If you got a voucher "for travel, 100 kms to an area in your country" what do you think would happen if you tried to trade in the voucher for travel 100 kms up?
Clearly, the writer of the voucher has made the mistake of writing its wording ambiguously.. and yet there is another very clear interpretation. The travel is intended to be "to an area in your country".
It would be here that we might apply Sage Advice, regarding 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.
The context might become abundantly clear if there was no facility made available for aerial transport, such as would be the logical case that, just by becoming "practiced in the art of crushing" (squeezing something between two sides) a medium creature including those with low strength or those weighing 100 to 145 pounds, such as if your character had the Slender and Graceful frame of an elf, would not naturally be able 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.
Clearly, there is a valid interpretation of the WotC texts that precludes vertical movement and, in the context of both the rules and basic logic, I view it as the more realistic, sensible and rules focussed interpretation of the texts.
I still think you are taking that section out of context since it is in the context of how much space any given creature occupies, rather than describing space they do not occupy. There is nothing prohibiting high jumps in combat nor flying in combat. Up is an available direction in combat.
Wherever a creature is at any point in time is where it is. It is not above itself, nor below itself, so of course that definition you are quoting does not mention above or below.
Flying creatures carry their own weight and, if a crusher enabled player hit a creature that was flying, I'd have no objection to that creature being knocked upwards on condition such as that they would continue flying.
Your Strength determines how far you can jump. ... High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In some circumstances, your DM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can. ...
Going back to our 9 strength elf, a valid option for the "you" in the crusher feat. There is no logic to suggest that a character that can only jump, with a run-up, just a single foot from the ground could knock an ogre or a horse up to a height of 5 ft.
But you have been hanging your statements on a definition of space not of jumping or carrying capacity. Fair game to say there should be limits on what direction the feat can knock people and still likely within the realm of RAI but at the fringes of it at best.
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.
You confuse what immdiately drop means i guess as you are in complete denial. Even when shown the very definition you refute the meaning so i guess everything you say will continue to show that.
Immediately, adverb
1. at once; instantly.
2.without any intervening time or space.
When.
This word denotes a trigger. When I cast a spell. <--- Would trigger... you know, if I cast a spell.
If I said, "When I cast a spell, I immediately descend up to 500ft" That'd mean I fall up to 500 ft after casting a spell.
So what's this mean?? ---> "When you fall from a great height, you instantly descend up to 500 feet."
When.
When you fall.
We've also went over this before too. You fall when the DM say you fall, usually when you find yourself in the incapacity to remain aloft in the air.
You now went from ''when the fall start'' to ''when you fall'' ...
Of course if the DM doesn't say you fall, you don't. But if he say you fall, you immediately drop. There's no purpose in asking 'when do you fall' if you are not even falling.
So when you fall, when do the fall start you asked? Immediately.
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.
You confuse what immdiately drop means i guess as you are in complete denial. Even when shown the very definition you refute the meaning so i guess everything you say will continue to show that.
Immediately, adverb
1. at once; instantly.
2.without any intervening time or space.
When.
This word denotes a trigger. When I cast a spell. <--- Would trigger... you know, if I cast a spell.
If I said, "When I cast a spell, I immediately descend up to 500ft" That'd mean I fall up to 500 ft after casting a spell.
So what's this mean?? ---> "When you fall from a great height, you instantly descend up to 500 feet."
When.
When you fall.
We've also went over this before too. You fall when the DM say you fall, usually when you find yourself in the incapacity to remain aloft in the air.
You now go from ''when the fall start'' to ''when you fall'' ...
Of course if the DM doesn't say you fall, you don't. But if he say you fall, you immediately drop. When you fall, when do the fall start you asked? Immediatly
I think I getting my head around the various aspects of the 5e rules for falling.
Apparently, it's slow enough to allow creatures to react with spells like Feather Fall and yet, according to the optional rules in xanathar's, the Rate of Falling "...assumes that a creature immediately drops the entire distance when it falls."
I think this is basically a conceit to let DMs quickly get the dice rolling and the players dead, or something like that, it basically brings an issue to an abrupt conclusion and removes the falling from a list of thing the DM might otherwise have to remember.
Then the Xanathar's text may be interpreted to change it's time frames. "When you fall from a great height, you instantly descend up to 500 feet. If you’re still falling on your next turn ..." Wait, What? "instantly...still"? An easy way to rationalise this is that some definition of 'falling over time' can now be applied. For falls over 500 ft, a logical interpretation may say that falling begins immediately and then continues, over time, until the continuance of the falling stops.
For what it's worth, with Earth's 9.80665 m/s2 gravitational acceleration, a fall of 1 ft would take slightly less than a quarter of a second while a fall of 5 ft would take slightly over half a second. If rates of falling in 5e worlds have any similarity to this, any character whose turn it is at the time when conditions enable falling, had better get their actions in quick.
If you got a voucher "for travel, 100 kms to an area in your country" what do you think would happen if you tried to trade in the voucher for travel 100 kms up?
Clearly, the writer of the voucher has made the mistake of writing its wording ambiguously.. and yet there is another very clear interpretation. The travel is intended to be "to an area in your country".
It would be here that we might apply Sage Advice, regarding 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.
The context might become abundantly clear if there was no facility made available for aerial transport, such as would be the logical case that, just by becoming "practiced in the art of crushing" (squeezing something between two sides) a medium creature including those with low strength or those weighing 100 to 145 pounds, such as if your character had the Slender and Graceful frame of an elf, would not naturally be able 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.
Clearly, there is a valid interpretation of the WotC texts that precludes vertical movement and, in the context of both the rules and basic logic, I view it as the more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation of the texts.
Again, the definition of space you link to only references a creature's space, not space in general or unoccupied space. It's not relevant to the result of the feat.
That depends on the company & the reality. In a RPG with high magic, being teleported or flown up 100km is certainly reasonable. Given that commercial spaceflight is now a thing...
It doesn't matter if anyone can do it "naturally", the feat allows them to do it. Just like how all the other feats allow the character to do something they couldn't do before.
What you state is not clear, mostly because it has no basis in the text. There is a short checklist for the effect: Is the space within 5', is it currently unoccupied, & is the target not more than 1 size larger than you? If yes, you may move the target to that location. Done. There is no reference to vertical movement, so as long as the movement fits those restrictions, upward movement is valid by the text of the feat. Again, references to weight are irrelevant, as neither the feat, nor any rule that I have seen cited in this thread, limits movement based on weight. If you know of a relevant one, please cite it. Otherwise, you are homebrewing. Which is fine in general, but not in the Rules forum.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You confuse what immdiately drop means i guess as you are in complete denial. Even when shown the very definition you refute the meaning so i guess everything you say will continue to show that.
Immediately, adverb
1. at once; instantly.
2.without any intervening time or space.
For what it's worth I'd consider "immediately drops the entire distance when it falls" to mean all at once.
However, that may be immaterial. I think the vertical distance interpretation of crusher is nonsensical.
When.
This word denotes a trigger. When I cast a spell. <--- Would trigger... you know, if I cast a spell.
If I said, "When I cast a spell, I immediately descend up to 500ft" That'd mean I fall up to 500 ft after casting a spell.
Pretty straightforward, right? Painfully straightforward...
So what's this mean?? ---> "When you fall from a great height, you instantly descend up to 500 feet."
When.
When you fall.
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 guess one way in which falling in 5e might be rationalised is that it has a quantum mechanics, wave-particle level of duality,
It considers that something "immediately drops the entire distance when it falls" yet permits enough time for a reaction and can be considered to span a round of time in cases that falls exceed 500 ft. It takes 200 ft of falling to reach an equivalent of terminal velocity and yet you'll still only fall 500ft on subsequent rounds.
I think the system has just been tidied to make it more manageable for DMs in-game.
Downward :D
You're getting directions mixed up.
We've been over this. Falling is resolved after the attack is resolved, which may be before the action is resolved.
Ugh. I give up. This would never happen at my table - we don’t play Looney Tunes physics.
”You choose when” doesn’t literally mean absolutely any moment in time, even between the Hit and Damage roll of an attack or before someone falls from a height. Same reason you can just walk over gaps by saying “I choose to walk 30ft all at a simultaneous time, therefore clearing the 20ft gap without jumping because falling doesn’t happen immediately, the book doesn’t say when falling occurs so I ignore it until the end of my movement”
The reality is, you don’t know when falling resolves - nothing says when falling starts. But common sense is that anytime something is at a certain height and can’t fly, it falls.
1) So the only way for your to use Telekinetic after your Crusher Action to push a target up another five feet and therefore force them to fall 10 ft… is if you allow falls only to happen when the player decides he doesn’t have any actions left to chain together (including movement).
2) Or, you play where people fall the moment they are in the air, and then movement and actions don’t have issues.
Both are perfectly acceptable interpretations of the rules I guess. I know I would never play at a table with player controlled physics like #1. To each their own.
Yeah. Time in combat is being abstracted. Attempting to understand it linearly is entirely impossible.
If you have 10 participants in combat, they each act in order of their initiative, each taking a turn. These turns represent 6 seconds of time. But, collectively, the entire sequence of all their turns is a round. The entire round represents 6 seconds. How can that be? Because the events on each of these participants turns is happening simultaneously. But, somehow, they also happening in a sequence that was determined based on turns. How can they happen in an ordered sequence but also happen simultaneously? Can't, not if we're trying to hit perfect realism.
But we sacrifice realism for ease of play. We abstract the timeline so that we can each take turns and work through the sequence of events in an orderly gamified way. Because it is a game, with rules and structure to make playing it fun and unpredictable, we give up realism. This isn't a reality simulator. Abstractions on the timing of events is absolutely required.
Trying to process the sequence of 5e combat events in a linear way... and you may as well be trying to figure out which brand of camera is responsible for creating the mona lisa painting.
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.
What, two interpretations of a rule?
Of course, common sense is that a medium creature including those with low strength or those weighing 100 to 145 pounds, such as if your character had the Slender and Graceful frame of an elf, can't knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
If you want further options to bar a 'crusher'- telekinetic interaction you could also invoke the DMG's:
Optional Rule: Diagonals
The Player’s Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.
When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.
Crusher and telekinetic would only wield 10 ft of movement, 5ft short of the 15 ft needed to move two squares diagonally.
Reality or DnD pick one...you don't usually get both.
Its silly to think that there is no issue with a wizard putting the soul of a creature in a jar, taking over the creatures body, then having the party move the jar 101 ft away and the creature dies forever and the wizard gets to keep the body.
Thats completely fine but a monk moving something 5ft is just too extreme?
Monks' abilities are explained in the PHb by:
The Magic of Ki
I'll choose what I like.
It's not wrong, because not every term in the rules has a 5E definition. So readers have to go by the 5e definition, if it exists, or the dictionary definition.
No one is advocating for a interpretation of the feat that does add an ability for facilitating vertical movement that no other physical combat feat has, because it's already there, we don't need to advocate for it, or interpret anything. Move the target 5' to a unoccupied space. Pretty simple as written, not ambiguous at all.
Again, all your references to weight are irrelevant. No part of the feat references the weight of either creature. Homebrew all you want, have fun, but that doesn't change what the designers have written, either as the rule (RAW) or as commentary afterward (RAI). And this is a rules forum.
There's no opinion of mine there. It's all dictionary definitions. You keep linking to "space", but if you read that section of the rules, you'll see that it actually only talks about a creature's space, not space in general or unoccupied space or object's space or outer space or Lost in Space. Just a creature's space. It's a misleading header.
So how do arrows & javelins & baseball games work at your table? Jumping? Juggling? Moons? I'm pretty sure that in addition to flight & falling, you also allow for momentum. Sometimes even enough for someone to perform a action (or the rest of a Attack action) before the target hits the ground.
And 5e has a Combat rules on Movement and Position, definition of a space as an area.
If you got a voucher "for travel, 100 kms to an area in your country" what do you think would happen if you tried to trade in the voucher for travel 100 kms up?
Clearly, the writer of the voucher has made the mistake of writing its wording ambiguously.. and yet there is another very clear interpretation. The travel is intended to be "to an area in your country".
It would be here that we might apply Sage Advice, regarding 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.
The context might become abundantly clear if there was no facility made available for aerial transport, such as would be the logical case that, just by becoming "practiced in the art of crushing" (squeezing something between two sides) a medium creature including those with low strength or those weighing 100 to 145 pounds, such as if your character had the Slender and Graceful frame of an elf, would not naturally be able 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.
Clearly, there is a valid interpretation of the WotC texts that precludes vertical movement and, in the context of both the rules and basic logic, I view it as the more realistic, sensible and rules focussed interpretation of the texts.
Flying creatures carry their own weight and, if a crusher enabled player hit a creature that was flying, I'd have no objection to that creature being knocked upwards on condition such as that they would continue flying.
There are relevant rules on:
Jumping
Your Strength determines how far you can jump.
...
High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In some circumstances, your DM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can.
...
Going back to our 9 strength elf, a valid option for the "you" in the crusher feat. There is no logic to suggest that a character that can only make a standing jump one-foot high could knock an ogre or a horse up to a height of 5 ft.
It's centrally within the realm of Sage Advice regarding "studying what the text says in context".
I'm completely clear about the "direction the feat can knock people", "to an unoccupied space".
We've also went over this before too. You fall when the DM say you fall, usually when you find yourself in the incapacity to remain aloft in the air.
You now went from ''when the fall start'' to ''when you fall'' ...
Of course if the DM doesn't say you fall, you don't. But if he say you fall, you immediately drop. There's no purpose in asking 'when do you fall' if you are not even falling.
So when you fall, when do the fall start you asked? Immediately.
I think I getting my head around the various aspects of the 5e rules for falling.
Apparently, it's slow enough to allow creatures to react with spells like Feather Fall and yet, according to the optional rules in xanathar's, the Rate of Falling "...assumes that a creature immediately drops the entire distance when it falls."
I think this is basically a conceit to let DMs quickly get the dice rolling and the players dead, or something like that, it basically brings an issue to an abrupt conclusion and removes the falling from a list of thing the DM might otherwise have to remember.
The PHb rules for falling make no mention of immediacy.
Then the Xanathar's text may be interpreted to change it's time frames. "When you fall from a great height, you instantly descend up to 500 feet. If you’re still falling on your next turn ..." Wait, What? "instantly...still"? An easy way to rationalise this is that some definition of 'falling over time' can now be applied. For falls over 500 ft, a logical interpretation may say that falling begins immediately and then continues, over time, until the continuance of the falling stops.
For what it's worth, with Earth's 9.80665 m/s2 gravitational acceleration, a fall of 1 ft would take slightly less than a quarter of a second while a fall of 5 ft would take slightly over half a second. If rates of falling in 5e worlds have any similarity to this, any character whose turn it is at the time when conditions enable falling, had better get their actions in quick.
Again, the definition of space you link to only references a creature's space, not space in general or unoccupied space. It's not relevant to the result of the feat.
That depends on the company & the reality. In a RPG with high magic, being teleported or flown up 100km is certainly reasonable. Given that commercial spaceflight is now a thing...
It doesn't matter if anyone can do it "naturally", the feat allows them to do it. Just like how all the other feats allow the character to do something they couldn't do before.
What you state is not clear, mostly because it has no basis in the text. There is a short checklist for the effect: Is the space within 5', is it currently unoccupied, & is the target not more than 1 size larger than you? If yes, you may move the target to that location. Done. There is no reference to vertical movement, so as long as the movement fits those restrictions, upward movement is valid by the text of the feat. Again, references to weight are irrelevant, as neither the feat, nor any rule that I have seen cited in this thread, limits movement based on weight. If you know of a relevant one, please cite it. Otherwise, you are homebrewing. Which is fine in general, but not in the Rules forum.