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?
If you need a specific example, consider 2 archers who have both readied an action to shoot you when you move outside your cover. On your turn you move outside your cover and their reactions trigger. Do you get to use a bonus action in-between their 2 attacks?
Well, your bonus action's 'when' would also have to be "When you move out of cover based on the frame of reference of 2 archers". Then you'd have 3 simultaneous effects. I can't think of a way in which someone would practically do this, how would you set that as their 'when' as it is impractical. But, sure, assuming that is the 'when' of their bonus action, then yes. Whosoever's turn it is determines the order of simultaneous events.
1. PC moves out of hiding. 2. The two archers reactions trigger. 3. The PC (whose turn it is) decides resolution order, and decides Archer 1 attacks before Archer 2. 3. Archer fires an arrow and rolls an attack roll. 4. PC's player says: "I use my bonus action to throw my dagger at archer 2 who hasn't yet fired. I am allowed to do that because I can choose when to use my bonus action, take a look at the rules:
Bonus Actions ... 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.
5. PC throws dagger at archer 2 who dies.
Scorching ray happens all at once. You aim your rays, you roll as many d20s as you have rays, you determine results. There is no in-between-rays moment here.
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.
Where in the rules does it state that the attacks of the Attack action happen sequentially? I might have overlooked such a statement and can't seem to find it.
Attacks are attacks, no matter whether they stem from an Attack action or a [Tooltip Not Found] action. They are resolved in the same manner too as seen below.
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
Your reading of the general RAW regarding bonus actions should apply to all action, reactions and everything in-between as it is a general rule that in no way specifies that it applies to the Attack action in a special manner.
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?
If you need a specific example, consider 2 archers who have both readied an action to shoot you when you move outside your cover. On your turn you move outside your cover and their reactions trigger. Do you get to use a bonus action in-between their 2 attacks?
Well, your bonus action's 'when' would also have to be "When you move out of cover based on the frame of reference of 2 archers". Then you'd have 3 simultaneous effects. I can't think of a way in which someone would practically do this, how would you set that as their 'when' as it is impractical. But, sure, assuming that is the 'when' of their bonus action, then yes. Whosoever's turn it is determines the order of simultaneous events.
1. PC moves out of hiding. 2. The two archers reactions trigger. 3. The PC (whose turn it is) decides resolution order, and decides Archer 1 attacks before Archer 2. 3. Archer fires an arrow and rolls an attack roll. 4. PC's player says: "I use my bonus action to throw my dagger at archer 2 who hasn't yet fired. I am allowed to do that because I can choose when to use my bonus action, take a look at the rules:
Bonus Actions ... 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.
5. PC throws dagger at archer 2 who dies.
You're wrong at step 4. "hasn't fired yet" is entirely wrong. He's absolutely fired already, it is simultaneous to the first shot. The rest falls apart thereafter for obvious reason of being built on an incorrect supposition.
Scorching ray happens all at once. You aim your rays, you roll as many d20s as you have rays, you determine results. There is no in-between-rays moment here.
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.
Where in the rules does it state that the attacks of the Attack action happen sequentially? I might have overlooked such a statement and can't seem to find it.
Attacks are attacks, no matter whether they stem from an Attack action or a Cast a Spell action. They are resolved in the same manner too as seen below.
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
Your reading of the general RAW regarding bonus actions should apply to all action, reactions and everything in-between as it is a general rule that in no way specifies that it applies to the Attack action in a special manner.
Are you genuinely unaware how to resolve the attack action? The attacks of the attack action needn't be simultaneous.
You can absolutely break your attack action up, move around and whatever between attacks. You can drop an enemy, run all around the battlemap, hit another guy, reconsider and run back and hit a different guy next.
Nothing about using an attack action, assuming you have extra attack, requires you to make all of these attacks simultaneously. scorching ray all the attacks are made at the same exact time... because that's what the spell text instructs us to do.
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 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?
If you need a specific example, consider 2 archers who have both readied an action to shoot you when you move outside your cover. On your turn you move outside your cover and their reactions trigger. Do you get to use a bonus action in-between their 2 attacks?
Well, your bonus action's 'when' would also have to be "When you move out of cover based on the frame of reference of 2 archers". Then you'd have 3 simultaneous effects. I can't think of a way in which someone would practically do this, how would you set that as their 'when' as it is impractical. But, sure, assuming that is the 'when' of their bonus action, then yes. Whosoever's turn it is determines the order of simultaneous events.
1. PC moves out of hiding. 2. The two archers reactions trigger. 3. The PC (whose turn it is) decides resolution order, and decides Archer 1 attacks before Archer 2. 3. Archer fires an arrow and rolls an attack roll. 4. PC's player says: "I use my bonus action to throw my dagger at archer 2 who hasn't yet fired. I am allowed to do that because I can choose when to use my bonus action, take a look at the rules:
Bonus Actions ... 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.
5. PC throws dagger at archer 2 who dies.
You're wrong at step 4. "hasn't fired yet" is entirely wrong. He's absolutely fired already, it is simultaneous to the first shot. The rest falls apart thereafter for obvious reason of being built on an incorrect supposition.
So you would allow the PC to kill archer 2 with his bonus action, and then potentially get struck by archer 2's arrow afterwards?
Scorching ray happens all at once. You aim your rays, you roll as many d20s as you have rays, you determine results. There is no in-between-rays moment here.
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.
Where in the rules does it state that the attacks of the Attack action happen sequentially? I might have overlooked such a statement and can't seem to find it.
Attacks are attacks, no matter whether they stem from an Attack action or a Cast a Spell action. They are resolved in the same manner too as seen below.
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
Your reading of the general RAW regarding bonus actions should apply to all action, reactions and everything in-between as it is a general rule that in no way specifies that it applies to the Attack action in a special manner.
Are you genuinely unaware how to resolve the attack action? The attacks of the attack action needn't be simultaneous.
You can absolutely break your attack action up, move around and whatever between attacks. You can drop an enemy, run all around the battlemap, hit another guy, reconsider and run back and hit a different guy next.
Nothing about using an attack action, assuming you have extra attack, requires you to make all of these attacks simultaneously. scorching ray all the attacks are made at the same exact time... because that's what the spell text instructs us to do.
Can you please provide the rules that state that the attacks included in Scorching Ray are resolved differently than general attacks made with the Attack.
How is it time travelling? In your shield spell example, it does not prevent the attack having happened, it prevents the attack from being successful.
Attack happens, defender reacts by putting up a shield spell and therefore the attack that seemingly would have hit, does not. No time travel.
It triggers from the thing that it prevents from happening. You can only cast shield when you ARE hit. See the spell's trigger:
"which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell"
So the thing that allows you to even cast the spell is the thing the spell prevents from happening. Time travel.
The only thing I know of that works this way is some reactions. Not necessarily all reactions, of course. but certainly no Bonus actions work this way to my knowledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How is it time travelling? In your shield spell example, it does not prevent the attack having happened, it prevents the attack from being successful.
Attack happens, defender reacts by putting up a shield spell and therefore the attack that seemingly would have hit, does not. No time travel.
It triggers from the thing that it prevents from happening. You can only cast shield when you ARE hit. See the spell's trigger:
"which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell"
So the thing that allows you to even cast the spell is the thing the spell prevents from happening. Time travel.
The only thing I know of that works this way is some reactions. Not necessarily all reactions, of course. but certainly no Bonus actions work this way to my knowledge.
Argh!!!! If someone has +2 AC from a shield and a blow 'misses' them by way of that +2, does it mean that they were literally not hit?
If the attack roll is less than the attack target's AC then the attack misses. If the roll is equal to or higher than the target's AC then the attack hits.
How about a dragon. Do you believe a dragon's thick scales act as some sort of deflector shield?
The dragon's AC does include some natural armor, this is likely narratively flavored as resulting from their scales. But, this isn't RAW. The only thing RAW is the AC value printed in their stat block. How you conceptualize the hit or the miss is entirely up to you and your table to describe in cool and fun ways.
"Hitting" has included penetrating since day 1. This is a blow that would normally hit and penetrate, but since the shield intervenes, the attack hits the shield instead of getting through to you.
If the attack roll hits, you can then cast shield. If you do so, it forces a reevaluation of the hit/miss result. Some reaction cause this sort of recalculation. They interrupt the normal operation and interject their own rules for determining results.
Bonus actions on the other hand, they do not, as far as I'm aware, contain any such functionality. A bonus action can't be wedged into a calculation to force a reevaluation. Yet numerous reactions work that way by default.
So it is still an attack that 'hits.' Sure they could have worded it so pedantic types could not make time travel arguments but would that have really added anything to the game?
If your new shield increased AC is now higher than the attack roll, the attack doesn't hit, it misses.
It is important to know for example, if you have another effect on you such as armor of agathys. If you shield an incoming attack to cause it to miss you, you don't also trigger the agathys effect to cause cold damage when hit. Because shield changed the hit into a miss.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The issue is and always has been what constitutes an unoccupied space. Spaces, per the rules, only contain area and operate in two dimensions. The rules don't include anything for adjudication in three dimensions, so that is left entirely up to the DM. I think it's safe to say all spaces must have a "floor" so creatures can stand on them. But none of them have ceilings. Which means, if we're working in three dimensions, the DM decides how close two "floors" can get to one another. And this, ideally, would be based on the size of the creature occupying the lower space. But not necessarily.
And I know I keep using the term space, but we have to remember that spaces abstractly exist at different altitudes and depths; different planes. They're not cubes or some other three-dimensional geometric shape. I mentioned before, long ago, that a tall enough creature would technically occupy the "space" 5 feet off the ground if it's at least 7.5 feet tall. Which means they cannot be knocked up 5 feet because they technically occupy two spaces. Now, most horses are around 5-feet tall at the shoulder. So, if only their head and neck are up then, sure, they don't "occupy" that "space" 5 feet off the ground. Except they wouldn't be knocked up into just one space. They're Large, so they'd be knocked up (even diagonally) into four 5-foot spaces. So now we're in a situation where, if we interpret the feat to allow for vertical movement, it's only acceptable for some creatures.
I said it before, and I'll say it again: three dimensions is simply a degree of complexity the rules have never been written to adequately account for. The designers simply did not care about it. And they still don't care because they haven't taken any strides to flesh out any such rules. Not for flying, and not for swimming. So any ruling to account for three dimensions is, by necessity, going to be done without RAW support. For example, can you use Flanking in three dimensions? I know it's an optional rule, but I'm going to say "no". It requires positioning two allies on opposite sides or corners of an enemy's space. And without clearly-defined cubic dimensions, there's no rule for it. So, I'm going to say if you want to flank a flying enemy you all need to be at the same altitude.
People keep bringing up one of Jeremy Crawford's Tweets on Open Hand Technique as if that's some sort of Rosetta stone for decoding how this is supposed to work. Unfortunately for them, they're looking in the wrong place. Being able to "push [a creature] up to 15 feet away from you" is not the same as being able to "move [a creature] 5 feet to an unoccupied space", and not because of the distance. One doesn't care about space and implicitly is permissive of three dimensional movement. It doesn't even care about the environment and can forcibly move someone 15 feet through air, vacuum, and underwater. But "space" is a game term, and that attaches baggage to its use. Unfortunately, there is no right place to look, either. Despite all the queries, there has been zero feedback from the team since Tasha's was published almost a year ago. And I mean about anything. I find that radio silence is, in no uncertain terms, frustrating. And I doubt I'm alone in that assessment. The past 25, possibly 26 pages by the time this is posted, is a testament to this frustration.
It can also be liberating to simply let bygones be bygones and stop arguing over things which do not affect you. How another DM decides to interpret the rule does not affect you in the slightest. And these arguments are not productive.
However your table chooses to define "space" determines how the feat works. And if you're incorporating three dimensions, then you're adding on to the RAW. It may not contradict what's published, but it certainly goes above and beyond what has been published.
For the shield spell you do have to wait until you are actually hit to activate as that's part of the spell conditions.
If they miss your AC before shield then you never activate it.
This is important as it leaves your reaction open to use counterspell
So you do then believe that AC is purely not being actually hit, that armour acts as a force field and nothing ever glances off the armor itself?
Hit and miss are mechanical terms. "glances off" has no mechanical meaning, it would be part of your narrative description of the action and can happen or not happen as you, or your DM pleases when describing the action.
Yes, you know that the attack would hit without the shield intervening. But knowing it would hit is not the same as calculating the damage as well, resolving whether the target would survive the hit or not, etc.
Still not seeing any time travel.
Shield can only be used when you are hit. Period.
However, the effect of shield is to prevent you from being hit. <--- The spell stops the thing that started the spell.
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.
For the shield spell you do have to wait until you are actually hit to activate as that's part of the spell conditions.
If they miss your AC before shield then you never activate it.
This is important as it leaves your reaction open to use counterspell
So you do then believe that AC is purely not being actually hit, that armour acts as a force field and nothing ever glances off the armor itself?
Hit and miss are mechanical terms. "glances off" has no mechanical meaning, it would be part of your narrative description of the action and can happen or not happen as you, or your DM pleases when describing the action.
Yes, you know that the attack would hit without the shield intervening. But knowing it would hit is not the same as calculating the damage as well, resolving whether the target would survive the hit or not, etc.
Still not seeing any time travel.
Shield can only be used when you are hit. Period.
However, the effect of shield is to prevent you from being hit. <--- The spell stops the thing that started the spell.
I'll try this again since you seem to only understand mechanics with no actual comprehension beyond them.
Wearing armor increases Armor Class. Having thicker hide increases Armor Class. NO, the rules do not talk explicitly about anything bouncing off because it is irrelevant to normal play why something does not damage its target. It does not matter in the rules if it missed outright or failed to penetrate.
However it should be very clear to anyone who is playing this as game as something more than lines of code that the intent is that armor protecting you by its material strength, thickness, etc. and this is why it improves your AC. Thus, some attacks that would hit you if you were not wearing armor fail to hit you because you are wearing armor, presumably because they fail to get past the armor.
This isn't relevant to anything being discussed... you can narrate it however you like it has zero bearing on the rules.
Normal armor does exactly what the shield spell does, just automatically and constantly rather than conditionally at the cost of a reaction and spell slot.
This is false. Armor gives you a new AC calculation. Shield spell adds onto an existing AC calculation, but only when activated by being hit.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You can try to take that move action at any time. But there is a separate rule that walking requires contact with a solid object. Players don't declare outcomes "I successfully save against his spell", "I steal the MacGuffin without anyone noticing", or "I seduce the dragon". Players declare what they intend to do, in this case "I attack cactus #1, walk over the Grand Canyon, then attack cactus #2." GM: "You hit cactus #1, and as you attempt to walk over the canyon, your legs flail very quickly as you plummet to the Colorado River. Cactus #2 laughs at you mockingly."
It's not a issue of when the player declares the walk, or where the walk comes from (movement, action, bonus action, reaction), it's that you can't walk on air. Rule that open air is "Ludicrously Difficult Terrain", where every foot of walking movement costs 9 extra feet. 6' past the edge of the cliff, his momentum runs out, the Action & Dash have completed, & the only thing left to resolve is the fall.
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.
RAW in PHb says nothing about immediately which comes in with the optional falling rules in xanathar's but I think both camps are choosing to adopt these optional rules.
In this case, perhaps the two camps mentioned can be differentiated by saying.
Camp 1: considers falling to commence immediately but in a way that permits additional actions (in addition to feather fall type reactions). I don't think camp 1 says that falling gets delayed.
Camp 2: considers falling to conclude immediately in a way that does not permit additional actions (in addition to feather fall type reactions).
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".
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."
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.
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".
You're applying the definition of "a creature's space" and pretending that means "an unoccupied space".
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.
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".
You're applying the definition of "a creature's space" and pretending that means "an unoccupied space".
1. PC moves out of hiding.
2. The two archers reactions trigger.
3. The PC (whose turn it is) decides resolution order, and decides Archer 1 attacks before Archer 2.
3. Archer fires an arrow and rolls an attack roll.
4. PC's player says: "I use my bonus action to throw my dagger at archer 2 who hasn't yet fired. I am allowed to do that because I can choose when to use my bonus action, take a look at the rules:
5. PC throws dagger at archer 2 who dies.
Where in the rules does it state that the attacks of the Attack action happen sequentially? I might have overlooked such a statement and can't seem to find it.
Attacks are attacks, no matter whether they stem from an Attack action or a [Tooltip Not Found] action. They are resolved in the same manner too as seen below.
Your reading of the general RAW regarding bonus actions should apply to all action, reactions and everything in-between as it is a general rule that in no way specifies that it applies to the Attack action in a special manner.
You're wrong at step 4. "hasn't fired yet" is entirely wrong. He's absolutely fired already, it is simultaneous to the first shot. The rest falls apart thereafter for obvious reason of being built on an incorrect supposition.
Are you genuinely unaware how to resolve the attack action? The attacks of the attack action needn't be simultaneous.
You can absolutely break your attack action up, move around and whatever between attacks. You can drop an enemy, run all around the battlemap, hit another guy, reconsider and run back and hit a different guy next.
Nothing about using an attack action, assuming you have extra attack, requires you to make all of these attacks simultaneously. scorching ray all the attacks are made at the same exact time... because that's what the spell text instructs us to do.
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 you would allow the PC to kill archer 2 with his bonus action, and then potentially get struck by archer 2's arrow afterwards?
Can you please provide the rules that state that the attacks included in Scorching Ray are resolved differently than general attacks made with the Attack.
It triggers from the thing that it prevents from happening. You can only cast shield when you ARE hit. See the spell's trigger:
"which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell"
So the thing that allows you to even cast the spell is the thing the spell prevents from happening. Time travel.
The only thing I know of that works this way is some reactions. Not necessarily all reactions, of course. but certainly no Bonus actions work this way to my knowledge.
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.
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.
It has sequential instructions and the attacks rolls for all the beams is the same step.
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 the attack roll is less than the attack target's AC then the attack misses. If the roll is equal to or higher than the target's AC then the attack hits.
The dragon's AC does include some natural armor, this is likely narratively flavored as resulting from their scales. But, this isn't RAW. The only thing RAW is the AC value printed in their stat block. How you conceptualize the hit or the miss is entirely up to you and your table to describe in cool and fun ways.
If the attack roll hits, you can then cast shield. If you do so, it forces a reevaluation of the hit/miss result. Some reaction cause this sort of recalculation. They interrupt the normal operation and interject their own rules for determining results.
Bonus actions on the other hand, they do not, as far as I'm aware, contain any such functionality. A bonus action can't be wedged into a calculation to force a reevaluation. Yet numerous reactions work that way by default.
If your new shield increased AC is now higher than the attack roll, the attack doesn't hit, it misses.
It is important to know for example, if you have another effect on you such as armor of agathys. If you shield an incoming attack to cause it to miss you, you don't also trigger the agathys effect to cause cold damage when hit. Because shield changed the hit into a miss.
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.
For the shield spell you do have to wait until you are actually hit to activate as that's part of the spell conditions.
If they miss your AC before shield then you never activate it.
This is important as it leaves your reaction open to use counterspell
The issue is and always has been what constitutes an unoccupied space. Spaces, per the rules, only contain area and operate in two dimensions. The rules don't include anything for adjudication in three dimensions, so that is left entirely up to the DM. I think it's safe to say all spaces must have a "floor" so creatures can stand on them. But none of them have ceilings. Which means, if we're working in three dimensions, the DM decides how close two "floors" can get to one another. And this, ideally, would be based on the size of the creature occupying the lower space. But not necessarily.
And I know I keep using the term space, but we have to remember that spaces abstractly exist at different altitudes and depths; different planes. They're not cubes or some other three-dimensional geometric shape. I mentioned before, long ago, that a tall enough creature would technically occupy the "space" 5 feet off the ground if it's at least 7.5 feet tall. Which means they cannot be knocked up 5 feet because they technically occupy two spaces. Now, most horses are around 5-feet tall at the shoulder. So, if only their head and neck are up then, sure, they don't "occupy" that "space" 5 feet off the ground. Except they wouldn't be knocked up into just one space. They're Large, so they'd be knocked up (even diagonally) into four 5-foot spaces. So now we're in a situation where, if we interpret the feat to allow for vertical movement, it's only acceptable for some creatures.
I said it before, and I'll say it again: three dimensions is simply a degree of complexity the rules have never been written to adequately account for. The designers simply did not care about it. And they still don't care because they haven't taken any strides to flesh out any such rules. Not for flying, and not for swimming. So any ruling to account for three dimensions is, by necessity, going to be done without RAW support. For example, can you use Flanking in three dimensions? I know it's an optional rule, but I'm going to say "no". It requires positioning two allies on opposite sides or corners of an enemy's space. And without clearly-defined cubic dimensions, there's no rule for it. So, I'm going to say if you want to flank a flying enemy you all need to be at the same altitude.
People keep bringing up one of Jeremy Crawford's Tweets on Open Hand Technique as if that's some sort of Rosetta stone for decoding how this is supposed to work. Unfortunately for them, they're looking in the wrong place. Being able to "push [a creature] up to 15 feet away from you" is not the same as being able to "move [a creature] 5 feet to an unoccupied space", and not because of the distance. One doesn't care about space and implicitly is permissive of three dimensional movement. It doesn't even care about the environment and can forcibly move someone 15 feet through air, vacuum, and underwater. But "space" is a game term, and that attaches baggage to its use. Unfortunately, there is no right place to look, either. Despite all the queries, there has been zero feedback from the team since Tasha's was published almost a year ago. And I mean about anything. I find that radio silence is, in no uncertain terms, frustrating. And I doubt I'm alone in that assessment. The past 25, possibly 26 pages by the time this is posted, is a testament to this frustration.
It can also be liberating to simply let bygones be bygones and stop arguing over things which do not affect you. How another DM decides to interpret the rule does not affect you in the slightest. And these arguments are not productive.
However your table chooses to define "space" determines how the feat works. And if you're incorporating three dimensions, then you're adding on to the RAW. It may not contradict what's published, but it certainly goes above and beyond what has been published.
Hit and miss are mechanical terms. "glances off" has no mechanical meaning, it would be part of your narrative description of the action and can happen or not happen as you, or your DM pleases when describing the action.
Shield can only be used when you are hit. Period.
However, the effect of shield is to prevent you from being hit. <--- The spell stops the thing that started the spell.
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 isn't relevant to anything being discussed... you can narrate it however you like it has zero bearing on the rules.
This is false. Armor gives you a new AC calculation. Shield spell adds onto an existing AC calculation, but only when activated by being hit.
[REDACTED]
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.
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?
You can try to take that move action at any time. But there is a separate rule that walking requires contact with a solid object. Players don't declare outcomes "I successfully save against his spell", "I steal the MacGuffin without anyone noticing", or "I seduce the dragon". Players declare what they intend to do, in this case "I attack cactus #1, walk over the Grand Canyon, then attack cactus #2." GM: "You hit cactus #1, and as you attempt to walk over the canyon, your legs flail very quickly as you plummet to the Colorado River. Cactus #2 laughs at you mockingly."
It's not a issue of when the player declares the walk, or where the walk comes from (movement, action, bonus action, reaction), it's that you can't walk on air. Rule that open air is "Ludicrously Difficult Terrain", where every foot of walking movement costs 9 extra feet. 6' past the edge of the cliff, his momentum runs out, the Action & Dash have completed, & the only thing left to resolve is the fall.
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.
RAW in PHb says nothing about immediately which comes in with the optional falling rules in xanathar's but I think both camps are choosing to adopt these optional rules.
In this case, perhaps the two camps mentioned can be differentiated by saying.
Camp 1: considers falling to commence immediately but in a way that permits additional actions (in addition to feather fall type reactions).
I don't think camp 1 says that falling gets delayed.
Camp 2: considers falling to conclude immediately in a way that does not permit additional actions (in addition to feather fall type reactions).
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".
Third sentence.
"Make a ranged spell attack for each ray."
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You're applying the definition of "a creature's space" and pretending that means "an unoccupied space".
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You're inferring that "an unoccupied space" isn't a movement and position, combat defined space that a creature can occupy.