Scorching Ray is a single action, just like the Attack action is a single action. Both can consist of multiple attacks. You argue bonus actions can be used between attacks. The rules say nothing about in-between moments, except in the specific case of movement, which is not what we are discussing.
Scorching Ray isn't an action, it is a spell. Casting it is typically using the Cast a Spell action. But, that isn't certain. It can be done as a reaction if you have warcaster feat. Or as a bonus action if you quicken it. Spells aren't actions. They can be 'cast' using actions.
The attacks the the spell scorching ray creates are all created as the spell text explains they are. The order here is explicit. You make all attacks rolls. Then you determine damage for the ones that hit their target. All rays are fired simultaneously. There isn't an in-between rays.
When you take the Attack action, however, you make each attack sequentially. You fully resolve one attack before moving on to the next (if you even have more than one).
There is a pretty clear difference.
Scorching Ray is ambiguous. It is described as having instantaneous duration and yet says "You create three rays of fire and hurl them ... at one target or several" which, unless you have three free hands, maybe impossible to do simultaneously.
Nothing about it is ambiguous.
You create three rays of fire and hurl them at targets within range.
You can hurl them at one target or several.
Make a ranged spell attack for each ray.
On a hit, the target takes 2d6 fire damage.
It has sequential instructions and the attacks rolls for all the beams is the same step.
You make the claim that claim "All rays are fired simultaneously." I presumed that you came to this otherwise bizarre conclusion with reference to the spell having an instantaneous duration -- but you don't mention this. How did you come to the conclusion that "All rays are fired simultaneously"? I claim that the firing process of the hurling of three rays, potentially at three targets, with three attacks, can be interpreted to take time.
Third sentence.
"Make a ranged spell attack for each ray."
Yes, you make three attack rolls, potentially against three targets by hurling three rays in situations that may include you only having one hand free.
Again, how did you come to the conclusion that "All rays are fired simultaneously"?
Just jumping back into this. We basically have two camps right?
Camp 1:
Action Crusher with 5ft move straight up is allowed, and Falling gets delayed because the PC can decide to Bonus Action Telekinetic before Falling occurs because the rules say “when” and the PC has absolute distinction to use this term liberally, even before things like physics take effect (despite there being no rules regarding physics or durations of Falls in the book).
This Camp also says this “when” cannot happen between the hit and damage portions of an attack because these things are simultaneous (ie. Action hit, Bonus Action Hunters Mark, Action damage).
But this “when” doesn’t work with the Move Action, where you could just Action Dash 60ft over a 55ft gap by stating that the “when” of your Move Action happens before Falling at each step.
Camp 2:
Falling happens immediately and is a fundamental thing that just occurs any time you’re above ground and have no method to stay aloft. It happens as quickly as you’re moved off of a ledge, or into the air and has no basis for time or separation between the act that got you there.
In other words, Crusher hit, damage, movement, and fall damage all occur simultaneously and without interruption unless specifically mentioned (Feather Fall, for example).
There are no edge cases at all. You move off a ledge? Fall. You get pushed 5ft upwards? Fall. There is no “chained combos” to worry about or adjudicate.
Is that pretty much it?
Edit; I’m all for everyone having their own opinions, I just think if you’re new to this game I’d recommend Camp 2, because any table that would spend hours debating momentum, timing of moments, inertia, etc would probably drown lots of beginners.
Kind a third camp that believes that spaces only exist in 2D and that no spaces exist above a creature.... Not sure what that is about tbh because it's obviously wrong IMO as then you could attack something infinity up vertically but as long as it's 5ft horizontally you are good?
What don't you understand from RAW?
The RAW as relating to movement and position in combat defines space being "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
A creature that cannot fly cannot "effectively controls in combat" an area that is off the ground and this does not fit with 5e's specifically supplied definition of space.
Crusher gives specifics in regard to possible directions of movement "to" direction "an unoccupied space" destination with that destination being a space.
Your interpretation indicates that a medium-sized character whose potentially lightweight body may only be able to jump to a height of 1ft, could knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, which is "obviously wrong".
Flying is immaterial, here. Space, the area a creature both controls and occupies, exists only abstractly. A "space" can exist at ground level, 5 feet up, 30 feet up, 100 feet up, or just 1 foot up. But at what point does it become a new space?
To put it another way, at what altitude is a new space created? And does moving on the ground carry the same granularity?
And, for the record, that previously-articulated position isn't the third camp. But I'm, unfortunately, accustomed to that particular brand of tomfoolery. *sigh* A creature 30 feet up controls and occupies its space. And it's 30 feet away, regardless of the sizes of both the flier and anyone else below. You can't make a melee attack against it unless you can reach it.
What's more, although this is slightly off-topic, if the flier is also 40 feet out along the grid they're just 40 feet away. There's no Pythagorean 3-4-5 triangle. All D&D math is non-Euclidian.
Just jumping back into this. We basically have two camps right?
Camp 1:
Action Crusher with 5ft move straight up is allowed, and Falling gets delayed because the PC can decide to Bonus Action Telekinetic before Falling occurs because the rules say “when” and the PC has absolute distinction to use this term liberally, even before things like physics take effect (despite there being no rules regarding physics or durations of Falls in the book).
This Camp also says this “when” cannot happen between the hit and damage portions of an attack because these things are simultaneous (ie. Action hit, Bonus Action Hunters Mark, Action damage).
But this “when” doesn’t work with the Move Action, where you could just Action Dash 60ft over a 55ft gap by stating that the “when” of your Move Action happens before Falling at each step.
Camp 2:
Falling happens immediately and is a fundamental thing that just occurs any time you’re above ground and have no method to stay aloft. It happens as quickly as you’re moved off of a ledge, or into the air and has no basis for time or separation between the act that got you there.
In other words, Crusher hit, damage, movement, and fall damage all occur simultaneously and without interruption unless specifically mentioned (Feather Fall, for example).
There are no edge cases at all. You move off a ledge? Fall. You get pushed 5ft upwards? Fall. There is no “chained combos” to worry about or adjudicate.
Is that pretty much it?
Edit; I’m all for everyone having their own opinions, I just think if you’re new to this game I’d recommend Camp 2, because any table that would spend hours debating momentum, timing of moments, inertia, etc would probably drown lots of beginners.
Kind a third camp that believes that spaces only exist in 2D and that no spaces exist above a creature.... Not sure what that is about tbh because it's obviously wrong IMO as then you could attack something infinity up vertically but as long as it's 5ft horizontally you are good?
What don't you understand from RAW?
The RAW as relating to movement and position in combat defines space being "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
A creature that cannot fly cannot "effectively controls in combat" an area that is off the ground and this does not fit with 5e's specifically supplied definition of space.
Crusher gives specifics in regard to possible directions of movement "to" direction "an unoccupied space" destination with that destination being a space.
Your interpretation indicates that a medium-sized character whose potentially lightweight body may only be able to jump to a height of 1ft, could knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, which is "obviously wrong".
It's pretty obvious that spaces have some kind of vertical dimension or else you come to the frankly silly conclusion that you can attack a creature at any height as long as it's within 5ft horizontal from the creature.... So which one is more silly?
Also a warlock can push a gargantuan creature back 40ft with a cantrip so let's not pretend we are dealing with much logic in a DnD game.
Overall the correct answer is the DM decides if the space 5ft above the creature is unoccupied or not and if it's not then 5ft up you go.
Just jumping back into this. We basically have two camps right?
Camp 1:
Action Crusher with 5ft move straight up is allowed, and Falling gets delayed because the PC can decide to Bonus Action Telekinetic before Falling occurs because the rules say “when” and the PC has absolute distinction to use this term liberally, even before things like physics take effect (despite there being no rules regarding physics or durations of Falls in the book).
This Camp also says this “when” cannot happen between the hit and damage portions of an attack because these things are simultaneous (ie. Action hit, Bonus Action Hunters Mark, Action damage).
But this “when” doesn’t work with the Move Action, where you could just Action Dash 60ft over a 55ft gap by stating that the “when” of your Move Action happens before Falling at each step.
Camp 2:
Falling happens immediately and is a fundamental thing that just occurs any time you’re above ground and have no method to stay aloft. It happens as quickly as you’re moved off of a ledge, or into the air and has no basis for time or separation between the act that got you there.
In other words, Crusher hit, damage, movement, and fall damage all occur simultaneously and without interruption unless specifically mentioned (Feather Fall, for example).
There are no edge cases at all. You move off a ledge? Fall. You get pushed 5ft upwards? Fall. There is no “chained combos” to worry about or adjudicate.
Is that pretty much it?
Edit; I’m all for everyone having their own opinions, I just think if you’re new to this game I’d recommend Camp 2, because any table that would spend hours debating momentum, timing of moments, inertia, etc would probably drown lots of beginners.
Kind a third camp that believes that spaces only exist in 2D and that no spaces exist above a creature.... Not sure what that is about tbh because it's obviously wrong IMO as then you could attack something infinity up vertically but as long as it's 5ft horizontally you are good?
What don't you understand from RAW?
The RAW as relating to movement and position in combat defines space being "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
A creature that cannot fly cannot "effectively controls in combat" an area that is off the ground and this does not fit with 5e's specifically supplied definition of space.
Crusher gives specifics in regard to possible directions of movement "to" direction "an unoccupied space" destination with that destination being a space.
Your interpretation indicates that a medium-sized character whose potentially lightweight body may only be able to jump to a height of 1ft, could knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, which is "obviously wrong".
It's pretty obvious that spaces have some kind of vertical dimension or else you come to the frankly silly conclusion that you can attack a creature at any height as long as it's within 5ft horizontal from the creature.... So which one is more silly?
Also a warlock can push a gargantuan creature back 40ft with a cantrip so let's not pretend we are dealing with much logic in a DnD game.
Overall the correct answer is the DM decides if the space 5ft above the creature is unoccupied or not and if it's not then 5ft up you go.
What is your argument from RAW?
It's pretty obvious, reading RAW, that a movement and position in combat definition of space relates to "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Depending on close proximity, creatures with Flying Movement may still be able to be targetted by your melee attacks provided the creature is 5ft distance unless your weapon has the reach or if your player character is a bugbear. A character may also shoot or aim spell attacks at flying creatures etc.
Space A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them. ...
While a 5e combat rules space is "not an expression of its physical dimensions", that does not mean, for instance, a character can't, for instance, shoot at creatures in the air or on castle walls. They'd just do these things from their space.
Overall a DM can decide whatever they want but RAW "an unoccupied space", as fitting a description of a space that the creature can occupy, would be an area on the ground.
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
Just jumping back into this. We basically have two camps right?
Camp 1:
Action Crusher with 5ft move straight up is allowed, and Falling gets delayed because the PC can decide to Bonus Action Telekinetic before Falling occurs because the rules say “when” and the PC has absolute distinction to use this term liberally, even before things like physics take effect (despite there being no rules regarding physics or durations of Falls in the book).
This Camp also says this “when” cannot happen between the hit and damage portions of an attack because these things are simultaneous (ie. Action hit, Bonus Action Hunters Mark, Action damage).
But this “when” doesn’t work with the Move Action, where you could just Action Dash 60ft over a 55ft gap by stating that the “when” of your Move Action happens before Falling at each step.
Camp 2:
Falling happens immediately and is a fundamental thing that just occurs any time you’re above ground and have no method to stay aloft. It happens as quickly as you’re moved off of a ledge, or into the air and has no basis for time or separation between the act that got you there.
In other words, Crusher hit, damage, movement, and fall damage all occur simultaneously and without interruption unless specifically mentioned (Feather Fall, for example).
There are no edge cases at all. You move off a ledge? Fall. You get pushed 5ft upwards? Fall. There is no “chained combos” to worry about or adjudicate.
Is that pretty much it?
Edit; I’m all for everyone having their own opinions, I just think if you’re new to this game I’d recommend Camp 2, because any table that would spend hours debating momentum, timing of moments, inertia, etc would probably drown lots of beginners.
Kind a third camp that believes that spaces only exist in 2D and that no spaces exist above a creature.... Not sure what that is about tbh because it's obviously wrong IMO as then you could attack something infinity up vertically but as long as it's 5ft horizontally you are good?
What don't you understand from RAW?
The RAW as relating to movement and position in combat defines space being "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
A creature that cannot fly cannot "effectively controls in combat" an area that is off the ground and this does not fit with 5e's specifically supplied definition of space.
Crusher gives specifics in regard to possible directions of movement "to" direction "an unoccupied space" destination with that destination being a space.
Your interpretation indicates that a medium-sized character whose potentially lightweight body may only be able to jump to a height of 1ft, could knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, which is "obviously wrong".
Flying is immaterial, here. Space, the area a creature both controls and occupies, exists only abstractly. A "space" can exist at ground level, 5 feet up, 30 feet up, 100 feet up, or just 1 foot up. But at what point does it become a new space?
To put it another way, at what altitude is a new space created? And does moving on the ground carry the same granularity?
And, for the record, that previously-articulated position isn't the third camp. But I'm, unfortunately, accustomed to that particular brand of tomfoolery. *sigh* A creature 30 feet up controls and occupies its space. And it's 30 feet away, regardless of the sizes of both the flier and anyone else below. You can't make a melee attack against it unless you can reach it.
What's more, although this is slightly off-topic, if the flier is also 40 feet out along the grid they're just 40 feet away. There's no Pythagorean 3-4-5 triangle. All D&D math is non-Euclidian.
A creature that is not utilising an ability to fly or otherwise become weightless cannot occupy a position off the ground as an "area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively". It would fall. A position off the ground does not count as a movement and position,combat defined space, "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Crusher gives specifics in regard to possible directions of movement "to" direction "an unoccupied space" destination with that destination being a space. RAW, you're enabled to move creatures from area to area. That's all.
Just jumping back into this. We basically have two camps right?
Camp 1:
Action Crusher with 5ft move straight up is allowed, and Falling gets delayed because the PC can decide to Bonus Action Telekinetic before Falling occurs because the rules say “when” and the PC has absolute distinction to use this term liberally, even before things like physics take effect (despite there being no rules regarding physics or durations of Falls in the book).
This Camp also says this “when” cannot happen between the hit and damage portions of an attack because these things are simultaneous (ie. Action hit, Bonus Action Hunters Mark, Action damage).
But this “when” doesn’t work with the Move Action, where you could just Action Dash 60ft over a 55ft gap by stating that the “when” of your Move Action happens before Falling at each step.
Camp 2:
Falling happens immediately and is a fundamental thing that just occurs any time you’re above ground and have no method to stay aloft. It happens as quickly as you’re moved off of a ledge, or into the air and has no basis for time or separation between the act that got you there.
In other words, Crusher hit, damage, movement, and fall damage all occur simultaneously and without interruption unless specifically mentioned (Feather Fall, for example).
There are no edge cases at all. You move off a ledge? Fall. You get pushed 5ft upwards? Fall. There is no “chained combos” to worry about or adjudicate.
Is that pretty much it?
Edit; I’m all for everyone having their own opinions, I just think if you’re new to this game I’d recommend Camp 2, because any table that would spend hours debating momentum, timing of moments, inertia, etc would probably drown lots of beginners.
Kind a third camp that believes that spaces only exist in 2D and that no spaces exist above a creature.... Not sure what that is about tbh because it's obviously wrong IMO as then you could attack something infinity up vertically but as long as it's 5ft horizontally you are good?
What don't you understand from RAW?
The RAW as relating to movement and position in combat defines space being "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
A creature that cannot fly cannot "effectively controls in combat" an area that is off the ground and this does not fit with 5e's specifically supplied definition of space.
Crusher gives specifics in regard to possible directions of movement "to" direction "an unoccupied space" destination with that destination being a space.
Your interpretation indicates that a medium-sized character whose potentially lightweight body may only be able to jump to a height of 1ft, could knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, which is "obviously wrong".
It's pretty obvious that spaces have some kind of vertical dimension or else you come to the frankly silly conclusion that you can attack a creature at any height as long as it's within 5ft horizontal from the creature.... So which one is more silly?
Also a warlock can push a gargantuan creature back 40ft with a cantrip so let's not pretend we are dealing with much logic in a DnD game.
Overall the correct answer is the DM decides if the space 5ft above the creature is unoccupied or not and if it's not then 5ft up you go.
What is your argument from RAW?
It's pretty obvious, reading RAW, that a movement and position in combat definition of space relates to "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Depending on close proximity, creatures with Flying Movement may still be able to be targetted by your melee attacks provided the creature is 5ft distance unless your weapon has the reach or if your player character is a bugbear. A character may also shoot or aim spell attacks at flying creatures etc.
Space A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them. ...
While a 5e combat rules space is "not an expression of its physical dimensions", that does not mean, for instance, a character can't, for instance, shoot at creatures in the air or on castle walls. They'd just do these things from their space.
Overall a DM can decide whatever they want but RAW "an unoccupied space", as fitting a description of a space that the creature can occupy, would be an area on the ground.
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
Nowhere does it say that a space needs to be on the ground to be occupied/unoccupied. If you were flying alongside another flying creature and used crusher you could move the creature to another space in 3D no problem (push them down 5ft for example) so it stands to reason it works that way on the ground as well.
So as a DM if you had a creature flying above another flying creature and it used crusher then it doesn't move at all?
Just jumping back into this. We basically have two camps right?
Camp 1:
Action Crusher with 5ft move straight up is allowed, and Falling gets delayed because the PC can decide to Bonus Action Telekinetic before Falling occurs because the rules say “when” and the PC has absolute distinction to use this term liberally, even before things like physics take effect (despite there being no rules regarding physics or durations of Falls in the book).
This Camp also says this “when” cannot happen between the hit and damage portions of an attack because these things are simultaneous (ie. Action hit, Bonus Action Hunters Mark, Action damage).
But this “when” doesn’t work with the Move Action, where you could just Action Dash 60ft over a 55ft gap by stating that the “when” of your Move Action happens before Falling at each step.
Camp 2:
Falling happens immediately and is a fundamental thing that just occurs any time you’re above ground and have no method to stay aloft. It happens as quickly as you’re moved off of a ledge, or into the air and has no basis for time or separation between the act that got you there.
In other words, Crusher hit, damage, movement, and fall damage all occur simultaneously and without interruption unless specifically mentioned (Feather Fall, for example).
There are no edge cases at all. You move off a ledge? Fall. You get pushed 5ft upwards? Fall. There is no “chained combos” to worry about or adjudicate.
Is that pretty much it?
Edit; I’m all for everyone having their own opinions, I just think if you’re new to this game I’d recommend Camp 2, because any table that would spend hours debating momentum, timing of moments, inertia, etc would probably drown lots of beginners.
Kind a third camp that believes that spaces only exist in 2D and that no spaces exist above a creature.... Not sure what that is about tbh because it's obviously wrong IMO as then you could attack something infinity up vertically but as long as it's 5ft horizontally you are good?
What don't you understand from RAW?
The RAW as relating to movement and position in combat defines space being "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
A creature that cannot fly cannot "effectively controls in combat" an area that is off the ground and this does not fit with 5e's specifically supplied definition of space.
Crusher gives specifics in regard to possible directions of movement "to" direction "an unoccupied space" destination with that destination being a space.
Your interpretation indicates that a medium-sized character whose potentially lightweight body may only be able to jump to a height of 1ft, could knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, which is "obviously wrong".
Flying is immaterial, here. Space, the area a creature both controls and occupies, exists only abstractly. A "space" can exist at ground level, 5 feet up, 30 feet up, 100 feet up, or just 1 foot up. But at what point does it become a new space?
To put it another way, at what altitude is a new space created? And does moving on the ground carry the same granularity?
And, for the record, that previously-articulated position isn't the third camp. But I'm, unfortunately, accustomed to that particular brand of tomfoolery. *sigh* A creature 30 feet up controls and occupies its space. And it's 30 feet away, regardless of the sizes of both the flier and anyone else below. You can't make a melee attack against it unless you can reach it.
What's more, although this is slightly off-topic, if the flier is also 40 feet out along the grid they're just 40 feet away. There's no Pythagorean 3-4-5 triangle. All D&D math is non-Euclidian.
A creature that is not utilising an ability to fly or otherwise become weightless cannot occupy a position off the ground as an "area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively". It would fall. A position off the ground does not count as a movement and position,combat defined space, "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Crusher gives specifics in regard to possible directions of movement "to" direction "an unoccupied space" destination with that destination being a space. RAW, you're enabled to move creatures from area to area. That's all.
What is your actual position? Because you have been arguing with everyone, even people you might ostensibly agree with. And you've been quoting the same rules over-and-over, even multiple times in the same post, to no effect.
I swear, there are days where I think I'm the only person here who even tries to read and process what others have to say. Like, you have to understand someone if you're going to properly respond to them. Which is why it's so frustrating when people obviously don't and just run their fingers over the keys instead of asking for clarification. And maybe a purely text-based format isn't helpful. I wish I had a white board, to be honest. Having said that...
Yes, and this is why I said flying is immaterial. Because flying is a non-factor in this scenario. Even if the target has a fly speed, they would immediately fall. At least, they would if they were hypothetically moved 5 feet up off the ground. (Which I don't agree is possible for reasons I've already articulated numerous times, but I digress.) They would have to wait until their next turn to stop themselves from falling or use their fly speed to reduce the damage suffered. But if they're only falling 5 feet, then there's no damage being dealt so it doesn't matter. This only really comes up if someone is trying to squeeze an extra 1d6 worth of bludgeoning damage from falling by knocking them up 5 so they can fall at least 10. An idea I find, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Now, if Crusher was being utilized against an already flying target, then maybe. The DM would need to adjudicate that because there are no hard rules for three dimensional movement and combat. Which means we don't need to address it.
Just jumping back into this. We basically have two camps right?
Camp 1:
Action Crusher with 5ft move straight up is allowed, and Falling gets delayed because the PC can decide to Bonus Action Telekinetic before Falling occurs because the rules say “when” and the PC has absolute distinction to use this term liberally, even before things like physics take effect (despite there being no rules regarding physics or durations of Falls in the book).
This Camp also says this “when” cannot happen between the hit and damage portions of an attack because these things are simultaneous (ie. Action hit, Bonus Action Hunters Mark, Action damage).
But this “when” doesn’t work with the Move Action, where you could just Action Dash 60ft over a 55ft gap by stating that the “when” of your Move Action happens before Falling at each step.
Camp 2:
Falling happens immediately and is a fundamental thing that just occurs any time you’re above ground and have no method to stay aloft. It happens as quickly as you’re moved off of a ledge, or into the air and has no basis for time or separation between the act that got you there.
In other words, Crusher hit, damage, movement, and fall damage all occur simultaneously and without interruption unless specifically mentioned (Feather Fall, for example).
There are no edge cases at all. You move off a ledge? Fall. You get pushed 5ft upwards? Fall. There is no “chained combos” to worry about or adjudicate.
Is that pretty much it?
Edit; I’m all for everyone having their own opinions, I just think if you’re new to this game I’d recommend Camp 2, because any table that would spend hours debating momentum, timing of moments, inertia, etc would probably drown lots of beginners.
Kind a third camp that believes that spaces only exist in 2D and that no spaces exist above a creature.... Not sure what that is about tbh because it's obviously wrong IMO as then you could attack something infinity up vertically but as long as it's 5ft horizontally you are good?
What don't you understand from RAW?
The RAW as relating to movement and position in combat defines space being "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
A creature that cannot fly cannot "effectively controls in combat" an area that is off the ground and this does not fit with 5e's specifically supplied definition of space.
Crusher gives specifics in regard to possible directions of movement "to" direction "an unoccupied space" destination with that destination being a space.
Your interpretation indicates that a medium-sized character whose potentially lightweight body may only be able to jump to a height of 1ft, could knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, which is "obviously wrong".
Flying is immaterial, here. Space, the area a creature both controls and occupies, exists only abstractly. A "space" can exist at ground level, 5 feet up, 30 feet up, 100 feet up, or just 1 foot up. But at what point does it become a new space?
To put it another way, at what altitude is a new space created? And does moving on the ground carry the same granularity?
And, for the record, that previously-articulated position isn't the third camp. But I'm, unfortunately, accustomed to that particular brand of tomfoolery. *sigh* A creature 30 feet up controls and occupies its space. And it's 30 feet away, regardless of the sizes of both the flier and anyone else below. You can't make a melee attack against it unless you can reach it.
What's more, although this is slightly off-topic, if the flier is also 40 feet out along the grid they're just 40 feet away. There's no Pythagorean 3-4-5 triangle. All D&D math is non-Euclidian.
A creature that is not utilising an ability to fly or otherwise become weightless cannot occupy a position off the ground as an "area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively". It would fall. A position off the ground does not count as a movement and position,combat defined space, "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Crusher gives specifics in regard to possible directions of movement "to" direction "an unoccupied space" destination with that destination being a space. RAW, you're enabled to move creatures from area to area. That's all.
What is your actual position? Because you have been arguing with everyone, even people you might ostensibly agree with. And you've been quoting the same rules over-and-over, even multiple times in the same post, to no effect.
I swear, there are days where I think I'm the only person here who even tries to read and process what others have to say. Like, you have to understand someone if you're going to properly respond to them. Which is why it's so frustrating when people obviously don't and just run their fingers over the keys instead of asking for clarification. And maybe a purely text-based format isn't helpful. I wish I had a white board, to be honest. Having said that...
Yes, and this is why I said flying is immaterial. Because flying is a non-factor in this scenario. Even if the target has a fly speed, they would immediately fall. At least, they would if they were hypothetically moved 5 feet up off the ground. (Which I don't agree is possible for reasons I've already articulated numerous times, but I digress.) They would have to wait until their next turn to stop themselves from falling or use their fly speed to reduce the damage suffered. But if they're only falling 5 feet, then there's no damage being dealt so it doesn't matter. This only really comes up if someone is trying to squeeze an extra 1d6 worth of bludgeoning damage from falling by knocking them up 5 so they can fall at least 10. An idea I find, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Now, if Crusher was being utilized against an already flying target, then maybe. The DM would need to adjudicate that because there are no hard rules for three dimensional movement and combat. Which means we don't need to address it.
My position is to stand for a sensible and logical, within context reading of Rules as Written that supports an internally consistent view of 5e worlds.
When contributors have made arguments based on misunderstandings or optional rules I have corrected and informed with a view, beyond the "camp" mentality mentioned, just to move the discussion on. We're on page 26 (presuming this post doesn't bump us to 27).
If I'm accurately and appropriately "quoting the same rules over-and-over,... to no effect", that's on you.
Flying is a great reference that I find provides a valuable contrast when talking about creatures that don't fly. In this light, I will refer to whichever topics I choose when making clear, grounded and sensible arguments.
Maybe it's just me, but that reads as strangely both non-committal and unnecessarily confrontational. We all want something sensible and consistent with the RAW. That should go without saying. I was asking for your interpretation.
And perhaps that's on me, you not answering as I hoped. It's not someone else's fault for not understanding whatever point you or I are trying to make. The impetus will always be on us to be clear and concise. Which means if your continuous repetition is having no effect, then you're an ineffective communicator. I shouldn't have to tell you that, about broken records, but I am.
You keep doing you. But don't act surprised if more people start ignoring you. Have a good night.
Maybe it's just me, but that reads as strangely both non-committal and unnecessarily confrontational. We all want something sensible and consistent with the RAW. That should go without saying. I was asking for your interpretation.
And perhaps that's on me, you not answering as I hoped. It's not someone else's fault for not understanding whatever point you or I are trying to make. The impetus will always be on us to be clear and concise. Which means if your continuous repetition is having no effect, then you're an ineffective communicator. I shouldn't have to tell you that, about broken records, but I am.
You keep doing you. But don't act surprised if more people start ignoring you. Have a good night.
The arguments from those in your camps often stray from issues as related to the texts and into personal criticism and opinion based attacks.
Your attack on being non-committal makes no sense given my resolution "to stand for a sensible and logical, within context reading of Rules as Written that supports an internally consistent view of 5e worlds".
On "unnecessarily confrontational", I started this discussion with the oft-repeated view that, when there are potential differences of interpretation, that "it's OK to agree to differ". Regardless of this, contributors here refused to acknowledge an option for a direction "to" interpretation of the text but, instead, engaged gratuitous, unnecessary confrontation.
You have the rule that specific supersedes general. You have a prescription of direction in the crusher feat. You have a clear definition of space in relation to movement and position in combat. Despite there being a clear and straightforward interpretation of the text that simply and directly interprets movement from area to area, you seem to choose a view that the feat can enable, say, a medium creature that cannot make a standing jump above 1 ft, can knock an ogre or a horse to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick.
I don't see that this view fits with seeking "a sensible and logical, within context reading of Rules as Written that supports an internally consistent view of 5e worlds". As far as I can see it's an exploitation of the rules by way of an attempted, let's remove bits of the rules from their context, hack.
Maybe it's just me, but that reads as strangely both non-committal and unnecessarily confrontational. We all want something sensible and consistent with the RAW. That should go without saying. I was asking for your interpretation.
And perhaps that's on me, you not answering as I hoped. It's not someone else's fault for not understanding whatever point you or I are trying to make. The impetus will always be on us to be clear and concise. Which means if your continuous repetition is having no effect, then you're an ineffective communicator. I shouldn't have to tell you that, about broken records, but I am.
You keep doing you. But don't act surprised if more people start ignoring you. Have a good night.
The arguments from those in your camps often stray from issues as related to the texts and into personal criticism and opinion based attacks.
Your attack on being non-committal makes no sense given my resolution "to stand for a sensible and logical, within context reading of Rules as Written that supports an internally consistent view of 5e worlds".
He was asking your stance on this topic. Not in some grand philosophical sense. Your response was noncommittal because you didn't say what your stance on this topic was.
On "unnecessarily confrontational", I started this discussion with the oft-repeated view that, when there are potential differences of interpretation, that "it's OK to agree to differ". Regardless of this, contributors here refused to acknowledge an option for a direction "to" interpretation of the text but, instead, engaged gratuitous, unnecessary confrontation.
To can be interpreted as a direction, no one had a problem with that. But spaces have an up/down axis of dimension. They just do. Unless you're running a game where it genuinely is 2D and the concept of up and down do not exist... then a space has up and down coordinates.
You have the rule that specific supersedes general. You have a prescription of direction in the crusher feat. You have a clear definition of space in relation to movement and position in combat.
Crusher has no prescription of direction.
That definition of space is a "Creature's Space" not an "Unoccupied Space"
Despite there being a clear and straightforward interpretation of the text that simply and directly interprets movement from area to area, you seem to choose a view that the feat can enable, say, a medium creature that cannot make a standing jump above 1 ft, can knock an ogre or a horse to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick.
Strength isn't a factor in the functionality of the feat. It just isn't. You bring it up repeatedly but it just... Is. Not. Relevant. Get this notion out your brainbox. Strength has nothing to do with the Crusher Feat. Nothing.
Aside from the fact you could use the +1 ASI to increase Strength, I guess. Learning to be a Crusher style fighter can make your character stronger, but doesn't require you to have any particular strength.
I don't see that this view fits with seeking "a sensible and logical, within context reading of Rules as Written that supports an internally consistent view of 5e worlds". As far as I can see it's an exploitation of the rules by way of an attempted, let's remove bits of the rules from their context, hack.
You can patch what you perceive as a missing requirement by homebrewing additional requirement.
Your entire issue boils down to this: "A low strength character shouldn't be able to knock around a big heavy target. I don't like it. It isn't realistic."
The fix: Homebrew additional requirements for the feat at your table so only characters strong enough to push/pull or whatever, the target, can use the feat to knock their target around.
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.
Maybe it's just me, but that reads as strangely both non-committal and unnecessarily confrontational. We all want something sensible and consistent with the RAW. That should go without saying. I was asking for your interpretation.
And perhaps that's on me, you not answering as I hoped. It's not someone else's fault for not understanding whatever point you or I are trying to make. The impetus will always be on us to be clear and concise. Which means if your continuous repetition is having no effect, then you're an ineffective communicator. I shouldn't have to tell you that, about broken records, but I am.
You keep doing you. But don't act surprised if more people start ignoring you. Have a good night.
The arguments from those in your camps often stray from issues as related to the texts and into personal criticism and opinion based attacks.
Your attack on being non-committal makes no sense given my resolution "to stand for a sensible and logical, within context reading of Rules as Written that supports an internally consistent view of 5e worlds".
He was asking your stance on this topic. Not in some grand philosophical sense. Your response was noncommittal because you didn't say what your stance on this topic was. . .
I presented my stance in an extremely effective way. I did not intend to do it grandly but thank you for that.
You know where I stand on the topic. I stand against the BS of ignoring direction of movement and of saying that a character that can't do a standing jump of over 1 ft can physically knock a creature one size larger than them to a height of 5 ft when in a way that can't be justified without taking rules out of context.
On "unnecessarily confrontational", I started this discussion with the oft-repeated view that, when there are potential differences of interpretation, that "it's OK to agree to differ". Regardless of this, contributors here refused to acknowledge an option for a direction "to" interpretation of the text but, instead, engaged gratuitous, unnecessary confrontation.
To can be interpreted as a direction, no one had a problem with that. But spaces have an up/down axis of dimension. They just do. Unless you're running a game where it genuinely is 2D and the concept of up and down do not exist... then a space has up and down coordinates..
According to the general definition of space (not currently as space is attached to a specific and different definition in movement and position rules in combat) sure. The game we are running is 5e in which there are rules for jumping, climbing, swimming and flying and in which the movement and position rules for combat define a space as an area.
You have the rule that specific supersedes general. You have a prescription of direction in the crusher feat. You have a clear definition of space in relation to movement and position in combat.
Crusher has no prescription of direction.
That definition of space is a "Creature's Space" not an "Unoccupied Space".
Crusher specifies direction in which "you can move it ... to an unoccupied space".
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
How is an unoccupied space not a space that a creature can occupy?
Please answer this question or please get the notion that the general definition of the word space isn't supreceded by the combat rules specific definition of the word space out your patronising brainbox.
Despite there being a clear and straightforward interpretation of the text that simply and directly interprets movement from area to area, you seem to choose a view that the feat can enable, say, a medium creature that cannot make a standing jump above 1 ft, can knock an ogre or a horse to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick.
Strength isn't a factor in the functionality of the feat. It just isn't. You bring it up repeatedly but it just... Is. Not. Relevant. Get this notion out your brainbox. Strength has nothing to do with the Crusher Feat. Nothing.
Aside from the fact you could use the +1 ASI to increase Strength, I guess. Learning to be a Crusher style fighter can make your character stronger, but doesn't require you to have any particular strength..
Please try not to behave in a patronising way. All you may do is, hopefully momentarily, bring others down toward the level of your behaviour.
Crusher requires direction "to an unoccupied space". If you are claming that this is anything other than a simple area to area movement then are then able to consider context and whether the outcomes of an interterpretation of a feat could be achieved by practice in a combat art.
The SAC specifies: 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.
In this case I'd ask myself can practice in a combat art possibly enable a medium creature that cannot make a standing jump above 1 ft, to knock an ogre or a horse to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick. No.
If you want to say yes then you do you - but you will be ignoring the direction specified by RAW and logical contexts that may rightly be applied to the texts.
I don't see that this view fits with seeking "a sensible and logical, within context reading of Rules as Written that supports an internally consistent view of 5e worlds". As far as I can see it's an exploitation of the rules by way of an attempted, let's remove bits of the rules from their context, hack.
You can patch what you perceive as a missing requirement by homebrewing additional requirement.
Your entire issue boils down to this: "A low strength character shouldn't be able to knock around a big heavy target. I don't like it. It isn't realistic."
The fix: Homebrew additional requirements for the feat at your table so only characters strong enough to push/pull or whatever, the target, can use the feat to knock their target around.
The RAW issues that I raise are:
Crusher specifies direction in which "you can move it ... to an unoccupied space".
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
And that in accordance to SAC when dealing with questions regarding the RAW interpretation of a rule we study what the rule says in context.
The SAC specifies: 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.
I not the one that needs to homebrew anything and that's thanks to a straightforward 5e context of a space describing an area and a straightforward reading of direction being specified in Crusher as being "to an unoccupied space". It's a nice and simple area to area movement, the kind of thing that might be achievable in a character becoming practised in combat arts.
creature's space is not "an unoccupied space" so you are already misunderstanding the feat at a fundamental level. You quote rules for a "Creatures Space" which is feat explicitly does NOT target.
creature's space is not "an unoccupied space" so you are already misunderstanding the feat at a fundamental level. You quote rules for a "Creatures Space" which is feat explicitly does NOT target.
In 5e d&d rules on movement and position in combat, a Space is an area. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
creature's space is not "an unoccupied space" so you are already misunderstanding the feat at a fundamental level. You quote rules for a "Creatures Space" which is feat explicitly does NOT target.
In 5e d&d rules on movement and position in combat, a Space is an area. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
Which is explicitly describing the space of a creature and not an "unoccupied space".....
If you want to be pedantic then that's fine but your own definitions do not support your claim....if you want to go down the ultra specific rabbit hole then no space exists by your definition unless a creature inhabits it....which is obviously not the intent of the feat nor the basic rules.
Since we have no rules for unoccupied spaces it seems then it falls under "DM decides" and thus there is not a firm answer either way.
But nothing explictly prohibits a low STR creature from using the feat which makes your main point completely moot.
creature's space is not "an unoccupied space" so you are already misunderstanding the feat at a fundamental level. You quote rules for a "Creatures Space" which is feat explicitly does NOT target.
In 5e d&d rules on movement and position in combat, a Space is an area. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
Which is explicitly describing the space of a creature and not an "unoccupied space".....
If you want to be pedantic then that's fine but your own definitions do not support your claim....if you want to go down the ultra specific rabbit hole then no space exists by your definition unless a creature inhabits it....which is obviously not the intent of the feat nor the basic rules.
Since we have no rules for unoccupied spaces it seems then it falls under "DM decides" and thus there is not a firm answer either way.
But nothing explictly prohibits a low STR creature from using the feat which makes your main point completely moot.
It certainly gives an example of space in relation to a creature's space.
You haven't answered the question. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
The 5e movement and position in combat definition of "space" as an area support my claim of area to area movement extremely well.
If you say that the current question 'falls under "DM decides"', are you happy for me to decide, within RAW, that an interpretation of movement direction to an unoccupied area is valid?
creature's space is not "an unoccupied space" so you are already misunderstanding the feat at a fundamental level. You quote rules for a "Creatures Space" which is feat explicitly does NOT target.
In 5e d&d rules on movement and position in combat, a Space is an area. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
Which is explicitly describing the space of a creature and not an "unoccupied space".....
If you want to be pedantic then that's fine but your own definitions do not support your claim....if you want to go down the ultra specific rabbit hole then no space exists by your definition unless a creature inhabits it....which is obviously not the intent of the feat nor the basic rules.
Since we have no rules for unoccupied spaces it seems then it falls under "DM decides" and thus there is not a firm answer either way.
But nothing explictly prohibits a low STR creature from using the feat which makes your main point completely moot.
It certainly gives an example of space in relation to a creature's space.
You haven't answered the question. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
The 5e movement and position in combat definition of "space" as an area support my claim of area to area movement extremely well.
If you say that the current question 'falls under "DM decides"', are you happy for me to decide, within RAW, that an interpretation of movement direction to an unoccupied area is valid?
No... As it's up to the DM and no general answer applies....
Based on my own interpretation of the rules I would allow it as a DM and you obviously have a different take.
creature's space is not "an unoccupied space" so you are already misunderstanding the feat at a fundamental level. You quote rules for a "Creatures Space" which is feat explicitly does NOT target.
In 5e d&d rules on movement and position in combat, a Space is an area. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
Which is explicitly describing the space of a creature and not an "unoccupied space".....
If you want to be pedantic then that's fine but your own definitions do not support your claim....if you want to go down the ultra specific rabbit hole then no space exists by your definition unless a creature inhabits it....which is obviously not the intent of the feat nor the basic rules.
Since we have no rules for unoccupied spaces it seems then it falls under "DM decides" and thus there is not a firm answer either way.
But nothing explictly prohibits a low STR creature from using the feat which makes your main point completely moot.
It certainly gives an example of space in relation to a creature's space.
You haven't answered the question. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
The 5e movement and position in combat definition of "space" as an area support my claim of area to area movement extremely well.
If you say that the current question 'falls under "DM decides"', are you happy for me to decide, within RAW, that an interpretation of movement direction to an unoccupied area is valid?
No... As it's up to the DM and no general answer applies....
Based on my own interpretation of the rules I would allow it as a DM and you obviously have a different take.
Either is valid but a blanket ruling is not.
Exactly, there are two interpretations.
My interpretation works with the view of the 5e d&d rules on movement and position in combat, a space as being an area and that it provides a helpful illustration of the resultant conditions when a creature occupies a space.
In relation to a feat that deals with movement and position in combat and that talks on movement to "an unoccupied space" I simply think that this refers to a space that is yet to be occupied.
This, as far as I can see, is the most straightforward, sensible, logical and in context, interpretation that can be taken of the text.
creature's space is not "an unoccupied space" so you are already misunderstanding the feat at a fundamental level. You quote rules for a "Creatures Space" which is feat explicitly does NOT target.
In 5e d&d rules on movement and position in combat, a Space is an area. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
Which is explicitly describing the space of a creature and not an "unoccupied space".....
If you want to be pedantic then that's fine but your own definitions do not support your claim....if you want to go down the ultra specific rabbit hole then no space exists by your definition unless a creature inhabits it....which is obviously not the intent of the feat nor the basic rules.
Since we have no rules for unoccupied spaces it seems then it falls under "DM decides" and thus there is not a firm answer either way.
But nothing explictly prohibits a low STR creature from using the feat which makes your main point completely moot.
It certainly gives an example of space in relation to a creature's space.
You haven't answered the question. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
The 5e movement and position in combat definition of "space" as an area support my claim of area to area movement extremely well.
If you say that the current question 'falls under "DM decides"', are you happy for me to decide, within RAW, that an interpretation of movement direction to an unoccupied area is valid?
No... As it's up to the DM and no general answer applies....
Based on my own interpretation of the rules I would allow it as a DM and you obviously have a different take.
Either is valid but a blanket ruling is not.
Exactly, there are two interpretations.
My interpretation works with the view of the 5e d&d rules on movement and position in combat, a space as being an area and that it provides a helpful illustration of the resultant conditions when a creature occupies a space.
In relation to a feat that deals with movement and position in combat and that talks on movement to "an unoccupied space" I simply think that this refers to a space that is yet to be occupied.
This, as far as I can see, is the most straightforward, sensible, logical and in context, interpretation that can be taken of the text.
Then that is your interpretation and at your table it will make sense.
My interpretation is equally as valid and will work at my table.
There is no "right" answer here....just whatever works for your table.
Keeping to things that make sense, at least to the extent of internal logic, is certainly one of my goals.
I think it's a stretch to say that a RAW text that otherwise states direction, permits a medium creature that can't jump over 1 ft to knock a large creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
I certainly doubt it's RAI.
We can still wait for the devs to comment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, you make three attack rolls, potentially against three targets by hurling three rays in situations that may include you only having one hand free.
Again, how did you come to the conclusion that "All rays are fired simultaneously"?
Flying is immaterial, here. Space, the area a creature both controls and occupies, exists only abstractly. A "space" can exist at ground level, 5 feet up, 30 feet up, 100 feet up, or just 1 foot up. But at what point does it become a new space?
To put it another way, at what altitude is a new space created? And does moving on the ground carry the same granularity?
And, for the record, that previously-articulated position isn't the third camp. But I'm, unfortunately, accustomed to that particular brand of tomfoolery. *sigh* A creature 30 feet up controls and occupies its space. And it's 30 feet away, regardless of the sizes of both the flier and anyone else below. You can't make a melee attack against it unless you can reach it.
What's more, although this is slightly off-topic, if the flier is also 40 feet out along the grid they're just 40 feet away. There's no Pythagorean 3-4-5 triangle. All D&D math is non-Euclidian.
It's pretty obvious that spaces have some kind of vertical dimension or else you come to the frankly silly conclusion that you can attack a creature at any height as long as it's within 5ft horizontal from the creature.... So which one is more silly?
Also a warlock can push a gargantuan creature back 40ft with a cantrip so let's not pretend we are dealing with much logic in a DnD game.
Overall the correct answer is the DM decides if the space 5ft above the creature is unoccupied or not and if it's not then 5ft up you go.
What is your argument from RAW?
It's pretty obvious, reading RAW, that a movement and position in combat definition of space relates to "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Depending on close proximity, creatures with Flying Movement may still be able to be targetted by your melee attacks provided the creature is 5ft distance unless your weapon has the reach or if your player character is a bugbear. A character may also shoot or aim spell attacks at flying creatures etc.
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them. ...
While a 5e combat rules space is "not an expression of its physical dimensions", that does not mean, for instance, a character can't, for instance, shoot at creatures in the air or on castle walls. They'd just do these things from their space.
Overall a DM can decide whatever they want but RAW "an unoccupied space", as fitting a description of a space that the creature can occupy, would be an area on the ground.
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
A creature that is not utilising an ability to fly or otherwise become weightless cannot occupy a position off the ground as an "area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively". It would fall. A position off the ground does not count as a movement and position, combat defined space, "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and that it "reflects the area it needs to fight effectively".
Crusher gives specifics in regard to possible directions of movement "to" direction "an unoccupied space" destination with that destination being a space. RAW, you're enabled to move creatures from area to area. That's all.
Nowhere does it say that a space needs to be on the ground to be occupied/unoccupied. If you were flying alongside another flying creature and used crusher you could move the creature to another space in 3D no problem (push them down 5ft for example) so it stands to reason it works that way on the ground as well.
So as a DM if you had a creature flying above another flying creature and it used crusher then it doesn't move at all?
What is your actual position? Because you have been arguing with everyone, even people you might ostensibly agree with. And you've been quoting the same rules over-and-over, even multiple times in the same post, to no effect.
I swear, there are days where I think I'm the only person here who even tries to read and process what others have to say. Like, you have to understand someone if you're going to properly respond to them. Which is why it's so frustrating when people obviously don't and just run their fingers over the keys instead of asking for clarification. And maybe a purely text-based format isn't helpful. I wish I had a white board, to be honest. Having said that...
Yes, and this is why I said flying is immaterial. Because flying is a non-factor in this scenario. Even if the target has a fly speed, they would immediately fall. At least, they would if they were hypothetically moved 5 feet up off the ground. (Which I don't agree is possible for reasons I've already articulated numerous times, but I digress.) They would have to wait until their next turn to stop themselves from falling or use their fly speed to reduce the damage suffered. But if they're only falling 5 feet, then there's no damage being dealt so it doesn't matter. This only really comes up if someone is trying to squeeze an extra 1d6 worth of bludgeoning damage from falling by knocking them up 5 so they can fall at least 10. An idea I find, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Now, if Crusher was being utilized against an already flying target, then maybe. The DM would need to adjudicate that because there are no hard rules for three dimensional movement and combat. Which means we don't need to address it.
My position is to stand for a sensible and logical, within context reading of Rules as Written that supports an internally consistent view of 5e worlds.
When contributors have made arguments based on misunderstandings or optional rules I have corrected and informed with a view, beyond the "camp" mentality mentioned, just to move the discussion on. We're on page 26 (presuming this post doesn't bump us to 27).
If I'm accurately and appropriately "quoting the same rules over-and-over,... to no effect", that's on you.
Flying is a great reference that I find provides a valuable contrast when talking about creatures that don't fly. In this light, I will refer to whichever topics I choose when making clear, grounded and sensible arguments.
Maybe it's just me, but that reads as strangely both non-committal and unnecessarily confrontational. We all want something sensible and consistent with the RAW. That should go without saying. I was asking for your interpretation.
And perhaps that's on me, you not answering as I hoped. It's not someone else's fault for not understanding whatever point you or I are trying to make. The impetus will always be on us to be clear and concise. Which means if your continuous repetition is having no effect, then you're an ineffective communicator. I shouldn't have to tell you that, about broken records, but I am.
You keep doing you. But don't act surprised if more people start ignoring you. Have a good night.
The arguments from those in your camps often stray from issues as related to the texts and into personal criticism and opinion based attacks.
Your attack on being non-committal makes no sense given my resolution "to stand for a sensible and logical, within context reading of Rules as Written that supports an internally consistent view of 5e worlds".
On "unnecessarily confrontational", I started this discussion with the oft-repeated view that, when there are potential differences of interpretation, that "it's OK to agree to differ". Regardless of this, contributors here refused to acknowledge an option for a direction "to" interpretation of the text but, instead, engaged gratuitous, unnecessary confrontation.
You have the rule that specific supersedes general. You have a prescription of direction in the crusher feat. You have a clear definition of space in relation to movement and position in combat. Despite there being a clear and straightforward interpretation of the text that simply and directly interprets movement from area to area, you seem to choose a view that the feat can enable, say, a medium creature that cannot make a standing jump above 1 ft, can knock an ogre or a horse to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick.
I don't see that this view fits with seeking "a sensible and logical, within context reading of Rules as Written that supports an internally consistent view of 5e worlds". As far as I can see it's an exploitation of the rules by way of an attempted, let's remove bits of the rules from their context, hack.
He was asking your stance on this topic. Not in some grand philosophical sense. Your response was noncommittal because you didn't say what your stance on this topic was.
To can be interpreted as a direction, no one had a problem with that. But spaces have an up/down axis of dimension. They just do. Unless you're running a game where it genuinely is 2D and the concept of up and down do not exist... then a space has up and down coordinates.
Strength isn't a factor in the functionality of the feat. It just isn't. You bring it up repeatedly but it just... Is. Not. Relevant. Get this notion out your brainbox. Strength has nothing to do with the Crusher Feat. Nothing.
Aside from the fact you could use the +1 ASI to increase Strength, I guess. Learning to be a Crusher style fighter can make your character stronger, but doesn't require you to have any particular strength.
You can patch what you perceive as a missing requirement by homebrewing additional requirement.
Your entire issue boils down to this: "A low strength character shouldn't be able to knock around a big heavy target. I don't like it. It isn't realistic."
The fix: Homebrew additional requirements for the feat at your table so only characters strong enough to push/pull or whatever, the target, can use the feat to knock their target around.
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 presented my stance in an extremely effective way. I did not intend to do it grandly but thank you for that.
You know where I stand on the topic. I stand against the BS of ignoring direction of movement and of saying that a character that can't do a standing jump of over 1 ft can physically knock a creature one size larger than them to a height of 5 ft when in a way that can't be justified without taking rules out of context.
I'm completely committed to this.
According to the general definition of space (not currently as space is attached to a specific and different definition in movement and position rules in combat) sure. The game we are running is 5e in which there are rules for jumping, climbing, swimming and flying and in which the movement and position rules for combat define a space as an area.
Please quote RAW to justify your claims.
Crusher specifies direction in which "you can move it ... to an unoccupied space".
The combat rules of movement and position provide a definition of:
Space
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
How is an unoccupied space not a space that a creature can occupy?
Please answer this question or please get the notion that the general definition of the word space isn't supreceded by the combat rules specific definition of the word space out your patronising brainbox.
Please try not to behave in a patronising way. All you may do is, hopefully momentarily, bring others down toward the level of your behaviour.
Crusher requires direction "to an unoccupied space". If you are claming that this is anything other than a simple area to area movement then are then able to consider context and whether the outcomes of an interterpretation of a feat could be achieved by practice in a combat art.
The SAC specifies:
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.
In this case I'd ask myself can practice in a combat art possibly enable a medium creature that cannot make a standing jump above 1 ft, to knock an ogre or a horse to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick. No.
If you want to say yes then you do you - but you will be ignoring the direction specified by RAW and logical contexts that may rightly be applied to the texts.
The RAW issues that I raise are:
Crusher specifies direction in which "you can move it ... to an unoccupied space".
The combat rules of movement and position provide a definition of:
Space
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
And that in accordance to SAC when dealing with questions regarding the RAW interpretation of a rule we study what the rule says in context.
The SAC specifies:
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.
I not the one that needs to homebrew anything and that's thanks to a straightforward 5e context of a space describing an area and a straightforward reading of direction being specified in Crusher as being "to an unoccupied space". It's a nice and simple area to area movement, the kind of thing that might be achievable in a character becoming practised in combat arts.
creature's space is not "an unoccupied space" so you are already misunderstanding the feat at a fundamental level. You quote rules for a "Creatures Space" which is feat explicitly does NOT target.
In 5e d&d rules on movement and position in combat, a Space is an area. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
I quote the 5e d&d rules for "space" in relation to movement and position in combat.
Which is explicitly describing the space of a creature and not an "unoccupied space".....
If you want to be pedantic then that's fine but your own definitions do not support your claim....if you want to go down the ultra specific rabbit hole then no space exists by your definition unless a creature inhabits it....which is obviously not the intent of the feat nor the basic rules.
Since we have no rules for unoccupied spaces it seems then it falls under "DM decides" and thus there is not a firm answer either way.
But nothing explictly prohibits a low STR creature from using the feat which makes your main point completely moot.
It certainly gives an example of space in relation to a creature's space.
You haven't answered the question. In 5e, in the context of RAW, what is the unoccupied space that can be moved to other than a space that can be occupied?
The 5e movement and position in combat definition of "space" as an area support my claim of area to area movement extremely well.
If you say that the current question 'falls under "DM decides"', are you happy for me to decide, within RAW, that an interpretation of movement direction to an unoccupied area is valid?
No... As it's up to the DM and no general answer applies....
Based on my own interpretation of the rules I would allow it as a DM and you obviously have a different take.
Either is valid but a blanket ruling is not.
Exactly, there are two interpretations.
My interpretation works with the view of the 5e d&d rules on movement and position in combat, a space as being an area and that it provides a helpful illustration of the resultant conditions when a creature occupies a space.
In relation to a feat that deals with movement and position in combat and that talks on movement to "an unoccupied space" I simply think that this refers to a space that is yet to be occupied.
This, as far as I can see, is the most straightforward, sensible, logical and in context, interpretation that can be taken of the text.
Then that is your interpretation and at your table it will make sense.
My interpretation is equally as valid and will work at my table.
There is no "right" answer here....just whatever works for your table.
Keeping to things that make sense, at least to the extent of internal logic, is certainly one of my goals.
I think it's a stretch to say that a RAW text that otherwise states direction, permits a medium creature that can't jump over 1 ft to knock a large creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
I certainly doubt it's RAI.
We can still wait for the devs to comment.