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.
Irrelevant. Cite a rule, or you're homebrewing. It doesn't matter how logical you believe your ruling is, it is still homebrew without official 5E text to support it.
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.
Irrelevant. Cite a rule, or you're homebrewing. It doesn't matter how logical you believe your ruling is, it is still homebrew without official 5E text to support it.
RAI can still be a thing, even when RAW seems clear.
Agreed, but I haven't seen anything quoting a dev about the topic either. A dev making a reference to vertical movement, weight, or some other part of the feat would be RAI, and totally change the conversation. So far it's just non-devs saying "But what about..." in regards to things not mentioned in the rules. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no RAI to reference in this case.
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.
This is an excellent point. If someone claims falling triggers immediately when something is in the air and can't fly, even if the fall interrupts actions, then throwing an axe at someone 10ft away causes the axe to immediately fall to the ground when it leaves your hands. Obviously things can move through the air without immediately triggering the 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.
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?
It doesn't have to be multi-sequence to fit within your interpretation of RAW. If you believe a Bonus Action can fit within any Action, then there shouldn't be a difference between how many sub-sequences said Action consists of. Whether the Attack Action consists of 1, 2, or more attacks, it is still considered a singular Action. To humor you on multi-sequence Reactions, how would you rule if 2 separate Reactions triggered at the same time? Would you allow the creature whose turn it is to squeeze a Bonus Action in between the 2 Reactions? Would you allow a Bonus Action to be inserted between the 3 rays of Scorching Ray?
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.
The rules in D&D are based around Actions, not intention. The rules operate around the assumption that you have not taken an Action until the Action is completed, meaning you haven't taken the Attack action until you have completed all the attacks you wish to complete with said action. The rules unfortunately do not address this design philosophy (that I can find), but the designers do.
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.
This is an excellent point. If someone claims falling triggers immediately when something is in the air and can't fly, even if the fall interrupts actions, then throwing an axe at someone 10ft away causes the axe to immediately fall to the ground when it leaves your hands. Obviously things can move through the air without immediately triggering the fall.
The rules for falling specifically address how the interaction works with creatures, not objects, hence your falling axe example lies outside the RAW discussion.
I have to admit, it does sound like your understanding of RAW would allow a character taking the Attack action to move through the air over a chasm with his normal speed without falling as long as he makes an attack before and after the crossing on his own turn (as Brewksy pointed out).
You don't have to comment on this last bit about falling as I think our basic understanding of the rules on this point is too far removed from one another to lead to any meaningful discussion.
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..
Again, in 5e Combat regarding Movement and Position, space in general is not relevant. We have a specific term presented by the authors. A space, as fitting with crusher "you can move it ... to an unoccupied space", is a location that is either unoccupied or that can be occupied by a creature. You move it and a space that had been unoccupied becomes occupied. The only change in relation to the space relates to issues of occupancy.
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". ...
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?
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's a good point regarding an RPG with high magic though this does not apply as Crusher is not magical, also that some creatures in RPGs can fly, which I've also argued could be relevant if a crusher attack targetted a flying creature.
Yeah, I guess if like most travel companies, it was without commercial spaceflight, if the produced vouchers saying "for travel, 100 kms to an area in your country" they might get cases for lawyers to sort out. The companies argument would be that the travel was just "to an area in your country" and to ask, wasn't it clear the kind of company we are?
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 ...
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. ...
The feat doesn't say, for instance, "You are empowered with the capacity for launching your enemies" but "You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies". The feat also gives a +1 bonus to either strength or constitution but the lead description of the feat presents practice and art, the kinds of things that would be relevant to battlefield control and moving opponents around the battlefield.
We've also heard nothing from the devs to suggest that crusher enables any launching capability but, all the same, let's consider what the feat allows characters to do.
So two brawlers start fighting. The one with the crusher feat hoists a mighty fist to crack straight upwards underneath her opponent's chin. It's a devastating blow and yet, according to the crusher feat, it would not fit with crusher.
The crusher feat says, "... when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" but, in this case, the attack is vertical so that the target creature would always stay within the same area/space. Your interpretation, which devs have not confirmed, says the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical?! It makes no sense.
It's reasonable to want to see that a physical feat can be performed naturally, unless people prefer to homebrew and, for instance, say it's enabled by magic.
... 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.
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.
If I say "I'm going to move x, y distance to another area" then a clear interpretation is that I'm moving them from area to area. The interpretation would be fair especially if I couldn't do otherwise. I didn't say I was going to move them to height.
Creatures or items jumping or being thrown or hurled can effectively move in the air without immediatly falling because a motion keeps them aloft for as long as they're moving. That is why a creature falls at the end of a jump if still in the air at the end of it.
In the exemple of Crusher, the target falls after being moved 5 feet vertically, immediately dropping, unless it can fly somehow.
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..
Again, in 5e Combat regarding Movement and Position, space in general is not relevant. We have a specific term presented by the authors. A space, as fitting with crusher "you can move it ... to an unoccupied space", is a location that is either unoccupied or that can be occupied by a creature. You move it and a space that had been unoccupied becomes occupied. The only change in relation to the space relates to issues of occupancy.
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". ...
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?
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's a good point regarding an RPG with high magic though this does not apply as Crusher is not magical, also that some creatures in RPGs can fly, which I've also argued could be relevant if a crusher attack targetted a flying creature.
Yeah, I guess if like most travel companies, it was without commercial spaceflight, if the produced vouchers saying "for travel, 100 kms to an area in your country" they might get cases for lawyers to sort out. The companies argument would be that the travel was just "to an area in your country" and to ask, wasn't it clear the kind of company we are?
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 ...
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. ...
The feat doesn't say, for instance, "You are empowered with the capacity for launching your enemies" but "You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies". The feat also gives a +1 bonus to either strength or constitution but the lead description of the feat presents practice and art, the kinds of things that would be relevant to battlefield control and moving opponents around the battlefield.
We've also heard nothing from the devs to suggest that crusher enables any launching capability but, all the same, let's consider what the feat allows characters to do.
So two brawlers start fighting. The one with the crusher feat hoists a mighty fist to crack straight upwards underneath her opponent's chin. It's a devastating blow and yet, according to the crusher feat, it would not fit with crusher.
The crusher feat says, "... when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" but, in this case, the attack is vertical so that the target creature would always stay within the same area/space. Your interpretation, which devs have not confirmed, says the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical?! It makes no sense.
It's reasonable to want to see that a physical feat can be performed naturally, unless people prefer to homebrew and, for instance, say it's enabled by magic.
... 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.
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.
If I say "I'm going to move x, y distance to another area" then a clear interpretation is that I'm moving them from area to area. The interpretation would be fair especially if I couldn't do otherwise. I didn't say I was going to move them to height.
The devs don't confirm every detail of every feat or rule, that is a unreasonable expectation. They did however, write a feat that allows someone to move another creature 5' to a unoccupied space as long as the target isn't too much bigger than the attacker. They made no reference to not allowing movement that is vertical, horizontal, or anywhere in between. They made no reference to either creature's weight. So those things don't need to be confirmed, in fact it is the opposite. If they intended vertical movement to not be allowed, that would be something they should confirm. No reasonable person expects confirmations of "Yes, we meant what we wrote."
There is no justification given in the rules for the vast majority of the things that can be done, even those that do not reference being magical in some way. So again, not a reasonable expectation.
Nothing in the statement "X moved y distance." prevents that move from being vertical. Or horizontal, or diagonal, or any combination of those directions. Just because you didn't state it was a change in height does not prevent another person from taking the same "X moved y distance." action & it result in a change of height.
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.
The rules in D&D are based around Actions, not intention. The rules operate around the assumption that you have not taken an Action until the Action is completed, meaning you haven't taken the Attack action until you have completed all the attacks you wish to complete with said action. The rules unfortunately do not address this design philosophy (that I can find), but the designers do.
I want you to click on your own link and read it again. Your link is telling you you're wrong.
Bro.
"you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it"
How can you link their RAI and still argue you have to complete the whole action? RAW you don't. And clearly RAI , based on your own link, you don't.
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.
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.
The rules in D&D are based around Actions, not intention. The rules operate around the assumption that you have not taken an Action until the Action is completed, meaning you haven't taken the Attack action until you have completed all the attacks you wish to complete with said action. The rules unfortunately do not address this design philosophy (that I can find), but the designers do.
I want you to click on your own link and read it again. Your link is telling you you're wrong.
Bro.
"you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it"
How can you link their RAI and still argue you have to complete the whole action? RAW you don't. And clearly RAI , based on your own link, you don't.
If you're going to quote that link, then RAW you DO have to complete the whole Attack action.
The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.
Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form.
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..
Again, in 5e Combat regarding Movement and Position, space in general is not relevant. We have a specific term presented by the authors. A space, as fitting with crusher "you can move it ... to an unoccupied space", is a location that is either unoccupied or that can be occupied by a creature. You move it and a space that had been unoccupied becomes occupied. The only change in relation to the space relates to issues of occupancy.
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". ...
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?
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's a good point regarding an RPG with high magic though this does not apply as Crusher is not magical, also that some creatures in RPGs can fly, which I've also argued could be relevant if a crusher attack targetted a flying creature.
Yeah, I guess if like most travel companies, it was without commercial spaceflight, if the produced vouchers saying "for travel, 100 kms to an area in your country" they might get cases for lawyers to sort out. The companies argument would be that the travel was just "to an area in your country" and to ask, wasn't it clear the kind of company we are?
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 ...
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. ...
The feat doesn't say, for instance, "You are empowered with the capacity for launching your enemies" but "You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies". The feat also gives a +1 bonus to either strength or constitution but the lead description of the feat presents practice and art, the kinds of things that would be relevant to battlefield control and moving opponents around the battlefield.
We've also heard nothing from the devs to suggest that crusher enables any launching capability but, all the same, let's consider what the feat allows characters to do.
So two brawlers start fighting. The one with the crusher feat hoists a mighty fist to crack straight upwards underneath her opponent's chin. It's a devastating blow and yet, according to the crusher feat, it would not fit with crusher.
The crusher feat says, "... when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" but, in this case, the attack is vertical so that the target creature would always stay within the same area/space. Your interpretation, which devs have not confirmed, says the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical?! It makes no sense.
It's reasonable to want to see that a physical feat can be performed naturally, unless people prefer to homebrew and, for instance, say it's enabled by magic.
... 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.
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.
If I say "I'm going to move x, y distance to another area" then a clear interpretation is that I'm moving them from area to area. The interpretation would be fair especially if I couldn't do otherwise. I didn't say I was going to move them to height.
The devs don't confirm every detail of every feat or rule, that is a unreasonable expectation. They did however, write a feat that allows someone to move another creature 5' to a unoccupied space as long as the target isn't too much bigger than the attacker. They made no reference to not allowing movement that is vertical, horizontal, or anywhere in between. They made no reference to either creature's weight. So those things don't need to be confirmed, in fact it is the opposite. If they intended vertical movement to not be allowed, that would be something they should confirm. No reasonable person expects confirmations of "Yes, we meant what we wrote."
There is no justification given in the rules for the vast majority of the things that can be done, even those that do not reference being magical in some way. So again, not a reasonable expectation.
Nothing in the statement "X moved y distance." prevents that move from being vertical. Or horizontal, or diagonal, or any combination of those directions. Just because you didn't state it was a change in height does not prevent another person from taking the same "X moved y distance." action & it result in a change of height.
The devs make no reference to the feat allowing movement that is vertical. All they've done is that they've written a feat that can be interpreted to say that the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical which, for me, makes no sense. This, and the sheer, apparent impossibility of the verticle interpretation of the feat in many situations, causes me to think that this interpretation can be rightly brought into question.
I don't think that devs should be expected to deny interpretations that regularly face impossibilities, that exceed the practice and art facilitation of the feat and that are internally ridiculous.
Nothing in the contextualised statement "I'm going to move x, y distance to another area" prevents "a clear interpretation is that I'm moving them from area to area" nothing more. Certainly, in non-d&d contexts, no reasonable person expects levels of performance that may go well beyond the possible.
I think that it is perfectly possible that the devs got caught up in the colloquial usage of "move" when they wrote the feat. Typically, if you say "I'm moving x distance" it relates to surface level movement. If instead, you want to jump you'd say, or at least include to say, "I'm jumping". If you want to climb you'd say, or at least include to say, "I'm climbing". For non-flying creatures gameplay use of the word move is straightforwardly used to describe surface level movement, and I think it's possible that the devs had this in mind when they wrote the feat.
At least I think that this is more possible that they intended an interpretation that allowed vertical movement in all directions except vertical or to allow characters (that might potentially only be able to do standing high jumps to 1 ft in height) could knock a significantly more massive creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick. That would make them out to be morons.
If something can be moved a distance, it can be moved in any direction unless saying otherwise. Telekinetic doesn't say otherwise, nor does Open Hand, with which the Dev confirmed you could push away vertically.
If something can be moved a distance, it can be moved in any direction unless saying otherwise. Telekinetic doesn't say otherwise, nor does Open Hand, with which the Dev confirmed you could push away vertically.
The direction is "to an unoccupied space" with that space being the area. A direct and fair interpretation of the text is that this is the direction intended. Telekinetic is empowered through mental abilities that aren't given parameters. Open Hand is empowered through The Magic of Ki. Crusher is empowered through your own practice in combat arts to supposedly be able to allow vertical movement in all directions except vertical?! It's nonsense.
The direction is "to an unoccupied space" with that space being the area.
That is not a direction but a destination. For specific direction, you can check Telekinetics, which mention toward or away from you for exemple.
The direction is "to" a destination as specifically fitting the description "an unoccupied space". Space, in 5e combat, is specifically defined to mean area.
The direction is "to an unoccupied space" with that space being the area.
That is not a direction but a destination. For specific direction, you can check Telekinetics, which mention toward or away from you for exemple.
The direction is "to" a destination as specifically fitting the description "an unoccupied space". Space, in 5e combat, is specifically defined to mean area.
If "to" such destination there's no specific direction, then it can be any unoccupied space within 5 feet.
If "to" such destination there's a specific direction, then it cannot be any unoccupied space within 5 feet but one that are eligible only.
The Crusher feat has no direction to its destination as written.
Yep any one of those specific options. With telekinetic, there can be a direction from specific options forwards or backwards. With crusher, there can be a direction from specific options "to an unoccupied space".
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.
The rules in D&D are based around Actions, not intention. The rules operate around the assumption that you have not taken an Action until the Action is completed, meaning you haven't taken the Attack action until you have completed all the attacks you wish to complete with said action. The rules unfortunately do not address this design philosophy (that I can find), but the designers do.
I want you to click on your own link and read it again. Your link is telling you you're wrong.
Bro.
"you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it"
How can you link their RAI and still argue you have to complete the whole action? RAW you don't. And clearly RAI , based on your own link, you don't.
Pardon, but that implies that you can attack and choose to do no damage, regardless of which weapon you use and have it still do damage. Or if you have a flaming weapon, that you can choose just to do physical damage and skip the flame damage?
I have no idea what you're asking this question for, or how it is relevant. It isn't worded very clearly either, so I'm not entirely sure what it is even asking. How can you do damage without doing damage but still do damage? Is it a riddle?
You seemed to be arguing that the TK shove should be able to be used before the attack action is completely resolved.
Sure, no reason it can't be.
However, if I am misunderstanding and you mean 'in the middle of an attack sequence,' well yes, you can choose not to use your extra attacks. However the attack action is one action that includes all extra attacks you may choose to make. If you are making more than just the one attack, you have to do them all before moving on to any other action (or bonus action). Only reactions can interrupt, because only reactions specifically say they can interrupt.
This is just false. Straight up wrong/bad information. "You choose when to use bonus actions on your turn". You can split actions up in many ways. Disagree? Quote the rules text that actually says what you're claiming. (I've been in enough discussions on this topic to know no such rules text exists)
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.
The rules in D&D are based around Actions, not intention. The rules operate around the assumption that you have not taken an Action until the Action is completed, meaning you haven't taken the Attack action until you have completed all the attacks you wish to complete with said action. The rules unfortunately do not address this design philosophy (that I can find), but the designers do.
I want you to click on your own link and read it again. Your link is telling you you're wrong.
Bro.
"you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it"
How can you link their RAI and still argue you have to complete the whole action? RAW you don't. And clearly RAI , based on your own link, you don't.
If you're going to quote that link, then RAW you DO have to complete the whole Attack action.
A tweet isn't RAW. RAW is what is written in the books. Not what is written on social media. A lot of non-rule based text can be found on social media and none of it is RAW. Most isn't even tangentially related to the game whatsoever. Trying to stitch together a D&D rules understanding from just twitter would be a pretty hardcore challenge. I recommend you instead get your rules text from the rules books.
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.
So let me get this straight. You are arguing that you can interrupt an attack action any time you want with a bonus action, but then do not understand the fact that implies you could interrupt the attack between it hitting and damage being applied. Or between hitting and before all of the damage is applied.
There is no time between these things. Doing damage is a resolution of hitting them. You're not "interrupting" an attack action by using a bonus action in between two different attacks. just like you're not "interrupting" an attack action by moving between those same attacks. You're just doing stuff in between your attacks. The books, ie RAW, doesn't call this "interrupting" and you probably shouldn't call it that either, it may be what is leading to your confusion here.
As for citing a rule that says you cannot, cite the rule that says that you can.
Sure.
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
There you go. You choose when.
There is no rule saying you cannot simply kill all the gods and take over all of reality simply by declaring 'I win,' however there is no rule that says you can, either. 'You can choose when to use a bonus action on your turn,' taken as literally as you are taking it, does indeed mean you can use it after an attack hits but before damage is determined, or before all the damage is determined, or before any triggers that allow the BA to be used at all.
Yeah, when you take the rules text literally it does tend to result in using the rule correctly. This is true. Try it!
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.
So let me get this straight. You are arguing that you can interrupt an attack action any time you want with a bonus action, but then do not understand the fact that implies you could interrupt the attack between it hitting and damage being applied. Or between hitting and before all of the damage is applied.
There is no time between these things. Doing damage is a resolution of hitting them. You're not "interrupting" an attack action by using a bonus action in between two different attacks. just like you're not "interrupting" an attack action by moving between those same attacks. You're just doing stuff in between your attacks. The books, ie RAW, doesn't call this "interrupting" and you probably shouldn't call it that either, it may be what is leading to your confusion here.
As for citing a rule that says you cannot, cite the rule that says that you can.
Sure.
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
There you go. You choose when.
There is no rule saying you cannot simply kill all the gods and take over all of reality simply by declaring 'I win,' however there is no rule that says you can, either. 'You can choose when to use a bonus action on your turn,' taken as literally as you are taking it, does indeed mean you can use it after an attack hits but before damage is determined, or before all the damage is determined, or before any triggers that allow the BA to be used at all.
Yeah, when you take the rules text literally it does tend to result in using the rule correctly. This is true. Try it!
I'd rule for a similar effect but by saying that, if the two feats were to work effectively together, telekinetic would need to be applied momentarily after crusher. The difficulty though is that crusher has a direction "to an unoccupied space" and, with a described direction to an occupable area, presents has a logical interpretation, for non-flying creatures, restricted to surface based movement.
So let me get this straight. You are arguing that you can interrupt an attack action any time you want with a bonus action, but then do not understand the fact that implies you could interrupt the attack between it hitting and damage being applied. Or between hitting and before all of the damage is applied.
There is no time between these things. Doing damage is a resolution of hitting them. You're not "interrupting" an attack action by using a bonus action in between two different attacks. just like you're not "interrupting" an attack action by moving between those same attacks. You're just doing stuff in between your attacks. The books, ie RAW, doesn't call this "interrupting" and you probably shouldn't call it that either, it may be what is leading to your confusion here.
As for citing a rule that says you cannot, cite the rule that says that you can.
Sure.
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
There you go. You choose when.
There is no rule saying you cannot simply kill all the gods and take over all of reality simply by declaring 'I win,' however there is no rule that says you can, either. 'You can choose when to use a bonus action on your turn,' taken as literally as you are taking it, does indeed mean you can use it after an attack hits but before damage is determined, or before all the damage is determined, or before any triggers that allow the BA to be used at all.
Yeah, when you take the rules text literally it does tend to result in using the rule correctly. This is true. Try it!
You say there is no time between those things but the rule you are holding so tightly to does not say anything about there needing to be time between anything. That is the point you hang on.
If needing time is an issue, you have to show that there is time between attacks within a multi-attack action.
I need to do what?
Show that time exists between attacks? Uh. Ok. That's obvious but here you go:
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.
You can run around between your attacks then we can say with certainty time exists between them.
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.
Irrelevant. Cite a rule, or you're homebrewing. It doesn't matter how logical you believe your ruling is, it is still homebrew without official 5E text to support it.
Agreed, but I haven't seen anything quoting a dev about the topic either. A dev making a reference to vertical movement, weight, or some other part of the feat would be RAI, and totally change the conversation. So far it's just non-devs saying "But what about..." in regards to things not mentioned in the rules. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no RAI to reference in this case.
This is an excellent point. If someone claims falling triggers immediately when something is in the air and can't fly, even if the fall interrupts actions, then throwing an axe at someone 10ft away causes the axe to immediately fall to the ground when it leaves your hands. Obviously things can move through the air without immediately triggering the 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.
It doesn't have to be multi-sequence to fit within your interpretation of RAW. If you believe a Bonus Action can fit within any Action, then there shouldn't be a difference between how many sub-sequences said Action consists of. Whether the Attack Action consists of 1, 2, or more attacks, it is still considered a singular Action. To humor you on multi-sequence Reactions, how would you rule if 2 separate Reactions triggered at the same time? Would you allow the creature whose turn it is to squeeze a Bonus Action in between the 2 Reactions?
Would you allow a Bonus Action to be inserted between the 3 rays of Scorching Ray?
The rules in D&D are based around Actions, not intention. The rules operate around the assumption that you have not taken an Action until the Action is completed, meaning you haven't taken the Attack action until you have completed all the attacks you wish to complete with said action. The rules unfortunately do not address this design philosophy (that I can find), but the designers do.
The rules for falling specifically address how the interaction works with creatures, not objects, hence your falling axe example lies outside the RAW discussion.
I have to admit, it does sound like your understanding of RAW would allow a character taking the Attack action to move through the air over a chasm with his normal speed without falling as long as he makes an attack before and after the crossing on his own turn (as Brewksy pointed out).
You don't have to comment on this last bit about falling as I think our basic understanding of the rules on this point is too far removed from one another to lead to any meaningful discussion.
Again, in 5e Combat regarding Movement and Position, space in general is not relevant. We have a specific term presented by the authors. A space, as fitting with crusher "you can move it ... to an unoccupied space", is a location that is either unoccupied or that can be occupied by a creature. You move it and a space that had been unoccupied becomes occupied. The only change in relation to the space relates to issues of occupancy.
It's a good point regarding an RPG with high magic though this does not apply as Crusher is not magical, also that some creatures in RPGs can fly, which I've also argued could be relevant if a crusher attack targetted a flying creature.
Yeah, I guess if like most travel companies, it was without commercial spaceflight, if the produced vouchers saying "for travel, 100 kms to an area in your country" they might get cases for lawyers to sort out. The companies argument would be that the travel was just "to an area in your country" and to ask, wasn't it clear the kind of company we are?
The feat doesn't say, for instance, "You are empowered with the capacity for launching your enemies" but "You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies". The feat also gives a +1 bonus to either strength or constitution but the lead description of the feat presents practice and art, the kinds of things that would be relevant to battlefield control and moving opponents around the battlefield.
We've also heard nothing from the devs to suggest that crusher enables any launching capability but, all the same, let's consider what the feat allows characters to do.
So two brawlers start fighting. The one with the crusher feat hoists a mighty fist to crack straight upwards underneath her opponent's chin. It's a devastating blow and yet, according to the crusher feat, it would not fit with crusher.
The crusher feat says, "... when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" but, in this case, the attack is vertical so that the target creature would always stay within the same area/space. Your interpretation, which devs have not confirmed, says the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical?! It makes no sense.
It's reasonable to want to see that a physical feat can be performed naturally, unless people prefer to homebrew and, for instance, say it's enabled by magic.
If I say "I'm going to move x, y distance to another area" then a clear interpretation is that I'm moving them from area to area. The interpretation would be fair especially if I couldn't do otherwise. I didn't say I was going to move them to height.
Creatures or items jumping or being thrown or hurled can effectively move in the air without immediatly falling because a motion keeps them aloft for as long as they're moving. That is why a creature falls at the end of a jump if still in the air at the end of it.
In the exemple of Crusher, the target falls after being moved 5 feet vertically, immediately dropping, unless it can fly somehow.
The devs don't confirm every detail of every feat or rule, that is a unreasonable expectation. They did however, write a feat that allows someone to move another creature 5' to a unoccupied space as long as the target isn't too much bigger than the attacker. They made no reference to not allowing movement that is vertical, horizontal, or anywhere in between. They made no reference to either creature's weight. So those things don't need to be confirmed, in fact it is the opposite. If they intended vertical movement to not be allowed, that would be something they should confirm. No reasonable person expects confirmations of "Yes, we meant what we wrote."
There is no justification given in the rules for the vast majority of the things that can be done, even those that do not reference being magical in some way. So again, not a reasonable expectation.
Nothing in the statement "X moved y distance." prevents that move from being vertical. Or horizontal, or diagonal, or any combination of those directions. Just because you didn't state it was a change in height does not prevent another person from taking the same "X moved y distance." action & it result in a change of height.
I want you to click on your own link and read it again. Your link is telling you you're wrong.
Bro.
"you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it"
How can you link their RAI and still argue you have to complete the whole action? RAW you don't. And clearly RAI , based on your own link, you don't.
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 you're going to quote that link, then RAW you DO have to complete the whole Attack action.
The devs make no reference to the feat allowing movement that is vertical. All they've done is that they've written a feat that can be interpreted to say that the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical which, for me, makes no sense. This, and the sheer, apparent impossibility of the verticle interpretation of the feat in many situations, causes me to think that this interpretation can be rightly brought into question.
I don't think that devs should be expected to deny interpretations that regularly face impossibilities, that exceed the practice and art facilitation of the feat and that are internally ridiculous.
Nothing in the contextualised statement "I'm going to move x, y distance to another area" prevents "a clear interpretation is that I'm moving them from area to area" nothing more. Certainly, in non-d&d contexts, no reasonable person expects levels of performance that may go well beyond the possible.
I think that it is perfectly possible that the devs got caught up in the colloquial usage of "move" when they wrote the feat.
Typically, if you say "I'm moving x distance" it relates to surface level movement. If instead, you want to jump you'd say, or at least include to say, "I'm jumping". If you want to climb you'd say, or at least include to say, "I'm climbing". For non-flying creatures gameplay use of the word move is straightforwardly used to describe surface level movement, and I think it's possible that the devs had this in mind when they wrote the feat.
At least I think that this is more possible that they intended an interpretation that allowed vertical movement in all directions except vertical or to allow characters (that might potentially only be able to do standing high jumps to 1 ft in height) could knock a significantly more massive creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick. That would make them out to be morons.
If something can be moved a distance, it can be moved in any direction unless saying otherwise. Telekinetic doesn't say otherwise, nor does Open Hand, with which the Dev confirmed you could push away vertically.
The direction is "to an unoccupied space" with that space being the area. A direct and fair interpretation of the text is that this is the direction intended.
Telekinetic is empowered through mental abilities that aren't given parameters.
Open Hand is empowered through The Magic of Ki.
Crusher is empowered through your own practice in combat arts to supposedly be able to allow vertical movement in all directions except vertical?! It's nonsense.
That is not a direction but a destination. For specific direction, you can check Telekinetics, which mention toward or away from you for exemple.
The direction is "to" a destination as specifically fitting the description "an unoccupied space". Space, in 5e combat, is specifically defined to mean area.
If "to" such destination there's no specific direction, then it can be any unoccupied space within 5 feet.
If "to" such destination there's a specific direction, then it cannot be any unoccupied space within 5 feet but one that are eligible only.
The Crusher feat has no direction to its destination as written.
Yep any one of those specific options.
With telekinetic, there can be a direction from specific options forwards or backwards.
With crusher, there can be a direction from specific options "to an unoccupied space".
I have no idea what you're asking this question for, or how it is relevant. It isn't worded very clearly either, so I'm not entirely sure what it is even asking. How can you do damage without doing damage but still do damage? Is it a riddle?
Sure, no reason it can't be.
This is just false. Straight up wrong/bad information. "You choose when to use bonus actions on your turn". You can split actions up in many ways. Disagree? Quote the rules text that actually says what you're claiming. (I've been in enough discussions on this topic to know no such rules text exists)
A tweet isn't RAW. RAW is what is written in the books. Not what is written on social media. A lot of non-rule based text can be found on social media and none of it is RAW. Most isn't even tangentially related to the game whatsoever. Trying to stitch together a D&D rules understanding from just twitter would be a pretty hardcore challenge. I recommend you instead get your rules text from the rules books.
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.
There is no time between these things. Doing damage is a resolution of hitting them. You're not "interrupting" an attack action by using a bonus action in between two different attacks. just like you're not "interrupting" an attack action by moving between those same attacks. You're just doing stuff in between your attacks. The books, ie RAW, doesn't call this "interrupting" and you probably shouldn't call it that either, it may be what is leading to your confusion here.
Sure.
There you go. You choose when.
Yeah, when you take the rules text literally it does tend to result in using the rule correctly. This is true. Try it!
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'd rule for a similar effect but by saying that, if the two feats were to work effectively together, telekinetic would need to be applied momentarily after crusher.
The difficulty though is that crusher has a direction "to an unoccupied space" and, with a described direction to an occupable area, presents has a logical interpretation, for non-flying creatures, restricted to surface based movement.
I need to do what?
Show that time exists between attacks? Uh. Ok. That's obvious but here you go:
You can run around between your attacks then we can say with certainty time exists between them.
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.