Benign Transportation swapping places doesn't require sight?

Quote from MaximusArael020 >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

 I would've said 'within range' is redundant text, as the spell has a range listed, and an effect must always originate within range.  So no killing any nonmagical plant anywhere. 

On the other hand, I would indeed say that doesn't require you to see the nonmagical plant.

 

I totally get that you are saying you read it that way. Like I said, I can see how it could be read that way.

Do you feel that the intent of the spell was to make you target a Creature that you can see, but to be able to kill non-creature plants without seeing them? 

I don't think any two people will ever agree on intent in all instances - it is unknowable, and more so as you add more people.

To the extent that it would have been easy to phrase these things in a way that meant what you want it to mean, and they didn't, my inference of intent would be that they wrote what they meant.  I mean, if something being counter-intuitive meant it wasn't intended, I'd have to rewrite half the rules of the game in my head, and no one would ever agree on anything.  (And why have rules at all at that point?)

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Quote from MaximusArael020 >>

I think you can read it as not requiring you to see the creature to swap places, however I don't feel like that is the correct reading.

 "...you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see. Alternatively, you can choose a space within range that is occupied by a Medium or smaller creature. If that creature is willing, you both teleport, swapping places."

To me it reads as the second sentence modifies the "unoccupied" qualifier from the first sentence. Instead of an "unoccupied" space, you can select an "occupied space" (space occupied by a creature), in which case you gain the ability to swap places. 

I see it as the "that you can see" is necessary in the targeting, and the options are "unoccupied" or "occupied, with extra effects". 

However if someone ran it with the interpretation that you can target an occupied space without seeing it, I couldn't fault them, as the wording is vague. 

There's two problems with your reading: First, "Alternatively" starts a new sentence.  It's an alternative to the previous sentence.  Second, 'an unoccupied space that you can see' is one clause grammatically.  You can't break it up like that, because its a single unit.  Further, 'that you can see' grammatically refers to 'an unoccupied space'.  There's no grammatical ambiguity here.  The wording isn't vague, it's just counter-intuitive.

You could rewrite it to say what you want it to say, but it does not say that as written.  

(If sight was meant to be required for both of them, the correct way to write it would be something like: "Choose a space you can see within 30':  If it is unoccupied, you teleport there.  If it contains a willing creature, you both teleport, swapping places.")

The second sentence of the ability is "Alternatively, you can choose a space within range that is occupied by a Medium or smaller creature." If, as you argue, this is a full alternative to the previous sentence, then what is the range of this ability? The ability is not a spell. It doesn't have a range listed (I assume, I can't see the full subclass text yet).

I consider that to be an indicator that we do know the (clumsy) intent of this text - that the second sentence is a modifier of the first, not a wholesale replacement. That the range is the same range from the last sentence, and that the space is the same space as the other sentence too, only this time it is occupied rather than unoccupied.

If you are the DM then you are within your rights to decide to use your text interpretation, but I don't think it would be justified to try to argue the point with a DM who assumed that Maximus' interpretation was correct. 

Quote from RegentCorreon >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Quote from MaximusArael020 >>

I think you can read it as not requiring you to see the creature to swap places, however I don't feel like that is the correct reading.

 "...you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see. Alternatively, you can choose a space within range that is occupied by a Medium or smaller creature. If that creature is willing, you both teleport, swapping places."

To me it reads as the second sentence modifies the "unoccupied" qualifier from the first sentence. Instead of an "unoccupied" space, you can select an "occupied space" (space occupied by a creature), in which case you gain the ability to swap places. 

I see it as the "that you can see" is necessary in the targeting, and the options are "unoccupied" or "occupied, with extra effects". 

However if someone ran it with the interpretation that you can target an occupied space without seeing it, I couldn't fault them, as the wording is vague. 

There's two problems with your reading: First, "Alternatively" starts a new sentence.  It's an alternative to the previous sentence.  Second, 'an unoccupied space that you can see' is one clause grammatically.  You can't break it up like that, because its a single unit.  Further, 'that you can see' grammatically refers to 'an unoccupied space'.  There's no grammatical ambiguity here.  The wording isn't vague, it's just counter-intuitive.

You could rewrite it to say what you want it to say, but it does not say that as written.  

(If sight was meant to be required for both of them, the correct way to write it would be something like: "Choose a space you can see within 30':  If it is unoccupied, you teleport there.  If it contains a willing creature, you both teleport, swapping places.")

The second sentence of the ability is "Alternatively, you can choose a space within range that is occupied by a Medium or smaller creature." If, as you argue, this is a full alternative to the previous sentence, then what is the range of this ability? The ability is not a spell. It doesn't have a range listed (I assume, I can't see the full subclass text yet).

I consider that to be an indicator that we do know the (clumsy) intent of this text - that the second sentence is a modifier of the first, not a wholesale replacement. That the range is the same range from the last sentence, and that the space is the same space as the other sentence too, only this time it is occupied rather than unoccupied.

If you are the DM then you are within your rights to decide to use your text interpretation, but I don't think it would be justified to try to argue the point with a DM who assumed that Maximus' interpretation was correct. 

The text treats 30' as the range for the whole thing, although it's not clean.  (But "within this range" is best read as a specific pointer back to the 30' number).  And you can tell, because a later ability increases its range to 60'.  "The range of your Benign Transposition feature increases to 60 feet."  So I interpret 'a space within range' to be a specific callback to that 30' distance.  But a specific pointer to a range is not blanket permission to interweave text freely between the two.  

The 'alternatively...' sentence is a choice permission: you can choose this.  The actual consequent (teleportation swap) is defined in a subsequent sentence. There's no way to mix-and-match this with the first option, because the sentences aren't even structured similarly.  Instead, you've explicitly got two choices: "an unoccupied space that you can see" and "a space ... that is occupied by a medium or smaller creature."  And there's no justification for reading part of one separate choice into the other one.  Indeed, you can't break up the first choice into parts, because 'that' is functioning like a pronoun here, referring directly to the unoccupied space.  Which thing 'that' you can see? 'That' unoccupied space.  The 'you can see' is grammatically tied directly to the 'unoccupied space'.  Nor does the use of "within this range" in the second choice permit any reading of the first choice into the second one, because that points only to the range itself.

Think of it this way:  "...you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see. Alternatively, you can choose a space within range that is occupied by a Medium or smaller creature. If that creature is willing, you both teleport, swapping places."  Action one. Range. Choice one. Choice two. Action two. 

So the only logical reading on the 'range' is that the entire ability has a range of 30', and this conclusion (that the entire ability has a single range) is compelled by a later ability that increases that range as a single entity to 60'.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

The text treats 30' as the range for the whole thing, although it's not clean.  (But "within this range" is best read as a specific pointer back to the 30' number).  And you can tell, because a later ability increases its range to 60'.  "The range of your Benign Transposition feature increases to 60 feet."  So I interpret 'a space within range' to be a specific callback to that 30' distance.  But a specific pointer to a range is not blanket permission to interweave text freely between the two.  

The 'alternatively...' sentence is a choice permission: you can choose this.  The actual consequent (teleportation swap) is defined in a subsequent sentence. There's no way to mix-and-match this with the first option, because the sentences aren't even structured similarly.  Instead, you've explicitly got two choices: "an unoccupied space that you can see" and "a space ... that is occupied by a medium or smaller creature."  And there's no justification for reading part of one separate choice into the other one.  Indeed, you can't break up the first choice into parts, because 'that' is functioning like a pronoun here, referring directly to the unoccupied space.  Which thing 'that' you can see? 'That' unoccupied space.  The 'you can see' is grammatically tied directly to the 'unoccupied space'.  Nor does the use of "within this range" in the second choice permit any reading of the first choice into the second one, because that points only to the range itself.

Think of it this way:  "...you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see. Alternatively, you can choose a space within range that is occupied by a Medium or smaller creature. If that creature is willing, you both teleport, swapping places."  Action one. Range. Choice one. Choice two. Action two. 

So the only logical reading on the 'range' is that the entire ability has a range of 30', and this conclusion (that the entire ability has a single range) is compelled by a later ability that increases that range as a single entity to 60'.

Oh, your reasoning is very easy to understand. You are not making any grammatical error in your analysis, we just think you are wrong as to the interpretation that the author intended.

You must agree that it is possible to read the rule with our interpretation without making any specific grammatical error. They could have written the rule more clearly in the direction to ensure there is no ambiguity, but here we are.

And then it is just my experience with the way these rules normally go, and the sort of things that end up getting clarified in Sage Advice that this ability is most certainly not intended to be able to be used through solid walls or when blinded. It's just not the sort of thing that happens around these parts. You are still perfectly correct to use your interpretation, but I wouldn't get used to it as it may well find itself "clarified" some day. 

Quote from RegentCorreon >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

The text treats 30' as the range for the whole thing, although it's not clean.  (But "within this range" is best read as a specific pointer back to the 30' number).  And you can tell, because a later ability increases its range to 60'.  "The range of your Benign Transposition feature increases to 60 feet."  So I interpret 'a space within range' to be a specific callback to that 30' distance.  But a specific pointer to a range is not blanket permission to interweave text freely between the two.  

The 'alternatively...' sentence is a choice permission: you can choose this.  The actual consequent (teleportation swap) is defined in a subsequent sentence. There's no way to mix-and-match this with the first option, because the sentences aren't even structured similarly.  Instead, you've explicitly got two choices: "an unoccupied space that you can see" and "a space ... that is occupied by a medium or smaller creature."  And there's no justification for reading part of one separate choice into the other one.  Indeed, you can't break up the first choice into parts, because 'that' is functioning like a pronoun here, referring directly to the unoccupied space.  Which thing 'that' you can see? 'That' unoccupied space.  The 'you can see' is grammatically tied directly to the 'unoccupied space'.  Nor does the use of "within this range" in the second choice permit any reading of the first choice into the second one, because that points only to the range itself.

Think of it this way:  "...you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see. Alternatively, you can choose a space within range that is occupied by a Medium or smaller creature. If that creature is willing, you both teleport, swapping places."  Action one. Range. Choice one. Choice two. Action two. 

So the only logical reading on the 'range' is that the entire ability has a range of 30', and this conclusion (that the entire ability has a single range) is compelled by a later ability that increases that range as a single entity to 60'.

Oh, your reasoning is very easy to understand. You are not making any grammatical error in your analysis, we just think you are wrong as to the interpretation that the author intended.

You must agree that it is possible to read the rule with our interpretation without making any specific grammatical error. They could have written the rule more clearly in the direction to ensure there is no ambiguity, but here we are.

And then it is just my experience with the way these rules normally go, and the sort of things that end up getting clarified in Sage Advice that this ability is most certainly not intended to be able to be used through solid walls or when blinded. It's just not the sort of thing that happens around these parts. You are still perfectly correct to use your interpretation, but I wouldn't get used to it as it may well find itself "clarified" some day. 

I think I've been pretty clear that reading the rule as you think its intended means making a grammatical error.  You're reassigning what is functionally a pronoun to a different object, and grammatically you're not allowed to do that.

I, however, don't believe RAI is a knowable thing.  Only the person who wrote the text can know what they intended, so unless they happen to pop into this thread and say something...

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

I think I've been pretty clear that reading the rule as you think its intended means making a grammatical error.  You're reassigning what is functionally a pronoun to a different object, and grammatically you're not allowed to do that.

I, however, don't believe RAI is a knowable thing.  Only the person who wrote the text can know what they intended, so unless they happen to pop into this thread and say something...

"That you can see" is definitely connected to the word space. The only ambiguous thing is whether the 'space' in the second sentence is in fact meant to be the same 'space' as that first sentence (only with 'occupied' replacing 'unoccupied') or is it talking about a completely unrelated space. There is no word present which forces it to be a different space that is unbeholden to restrictions placed on the first space (something like "Alternatively, choose *any* occupied space within range" indicating a disconnection between those two space requirements) but there also isn't anything forcing the opposite (like "Alternatively, if the space you choose is occupied then...).

We know the two sentences are directly related, since the definition of 'range' in the second sentence relies entirely on the content of the first. I consider this to be an indicator of the intended connection between the two usages of 'space'.

No, we cannot 'know' the intended interpretation until it is written down and published for us to see. What we can do is acknowledge that more than one interpretation is possible of an ambiguous sentence - and that some might assume that the interpretation that most aligns with the way all the other rules function is more likely to be the intended. 

Quote from RegentCorreon >>

The interpretation that most aligns with the way all the other rules function is more likely to be the intended.  

I agree. With all the other rules, "an unoccupied space that you can see" (like in Misty Step) means you need to be able to see the place you teleport to. "A point/location you choose within range" (like in Sickening Radiance) means you don't.

Therefore, you need to see the location if you use the Benign Transportation feature on your own, but you don't need to see your ally to swap locations with them. That's the interpretation most consistent with the way all the other rules function.

The range discussion really is irrelevant.

Quote from Natrel >>

Quote from RegentCorreon >>

The interpretation that most aligns with the way all the other rules function is more likely to be the intended.  

I agree. With all the other rules, "an unoccupied space that you can see" (like in Misty Step) means you need to be able to see the place you teleport to. "A point/location you choose within range" (like in Sickening Radiance) means you don't.

Therefore, you need to see the location if you use the Benign Transportation feature on your own, but you don't need to see your ally to swap locations with them. That's the interpretation most consistent with the way all the other rules function.

The range discussion really is irrelevant.

No, that's the interpretation of that single second sentence that most aligns with the way you would interpret another vaguely similar sentence in an isolated section of other rules.

I know of no other other features or rule where making a choice between an occupied space and an unoccupied space otherwise changes the requirements on the choice of that space. That's just not generally how these rules go.