And how often does one face a hot air balloon in D&D, exactly? Please..... talk about arguing in bad faith. (Edit: You clearly missed the word 'usually' or at least dismissed it).
That the Devs didn't put disclaimers in for every exception no matter how rare does nothing to deny the clear implied intent.
While there are no facing rules, if you are fighting someone one on one, it is reasonable to any sane person to assume you are doing so facing each other. Again, you are going full rules lawyer here. Fair game to some extent, this being the rules and game mechanics section, but even so....
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
I'd say that direction was a pretty central topic in this discussion and, with the WotC text failing to provide the relevant information, you don't get to dictate which factors people get to choose to consider.
I don't get to dictate them, correct. The rules do. The rules don't limit the ability by weight so it isn't limited by weight. The rules similarly don't limit the target by creature type, age, coloration, religion, national origin, they're not limited by level, HD, bonuses to saves, whether or not they're proficient in the Yarting, none of that. Just size, and if the destination is unoccupied. Period.
If you don't get to dictate then stop it. For DMs considering a context of realism, in absence of clear guidelines, they can consider what they like.
You confuse me telling you what the rules say for me dictating what you must do at your tables. You can do whatever you want at your table. But what you do doesn't change the RAW.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
No, it isn't. Please stop. The rule is super crystal clear. There is no ambiguity here.
If the creature is no more than one size larger, you can move them 5', but only into unoccupied spaces.
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.
And how often does one face a hot air balloon in D&D, exactly? Please..... talk about arguing in bad faith. (Edit: You clearly missed the word 'usually' or at least dismissed it).
That the Devs didn't put disclaimers in for every exception no matter how rare does nothing to deny the clear implied intent.
While there are no facing rules, if you are fighting someone one on one, it is reasonable to any sane person to assume you are doing so facing each other. Again, you are going full rules lawyer here. Fair game to some extent, this being the rules and game mechanics section, but even so....
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
I'd say that direction was a pretty central topic in this discussion and, with the WotC text failing to provide the relevant information, you don't get to dictate which factors people get to choose to consider.
I don't get to dictate them, correct. The rules do. The rules don't limit the ability by weight so it isn't limited by weight. The rules similarly don't limit the target by creature type, age, coloration, religion, national origin, they're not limited by level, HD, bonuses to saves, whether or not they're proficient in the Yarting, none of that. Just size, and if the destination is unoccupied. Period.
If you don't get to dictate then stop it. For DMs considering a context of realism, in absence of clear guidelines, they can consider what they like.
You confuse me telling you what the rules say for me dictating what you must do at your tables. You can do whatever you want at your table. But what you do doesn't change the RAW.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
You’re saying the RAW is incomplete because the RAW doesn’t support what you want the feat to actually do.
the RAW is clear.
if you’re worried about the feat being more generally useful than you want, that was also intentionally done by the design team.
https://youtu.be/Fmae5NdxDfM 25:31 to 32:35 Crawford talks about the feats in a fairly detailed way. 31:30 reiterates that the feats properties work regardless of the damage source. Sling, fist, or spell.
And how often does one face a hot air balloon in D&D, exactly? Please..... talk about arguing in bad faith. (Edit: You clearly missed the word 'usually' or at least dismissed it).
That the Devs didn't put disclaimers in for every exception no matter how rare does nothing to deny the clear implied intent.
While there are no facing rules, if you are fighting someone one on one, it is reasonable to any sane person to assume you are doing so facing each other. Again, you are going full rules lawyer here. Fair game to some extent, this being the rules and game mechanics section, but even so....
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
I'd say that direction was a pretty central topic in this discussion and, with the WotC text failing to provide the relevant information, you don't get to dictate which factors people get to choose to consider.
I don't get to dictate them, correct. The rules do. The rules don't limit the ability by weight so it isn't limited by weight. The rules similarly don't limit the target by creature type, age, coloration, religion, national origin, they're not limited by level, HD, bonuses to saves, whether or not they're proficient in the Yarting, none of that. Just size, and if the destination is unoccupied. Period.
If you don't get to dictate then stop it. For DMs considering a context of realism, in absence of clear guidelines, they can consider what they like.
You confuse me telling you what the rules say for me dictating what you must do at your tables. You can do whatever you want at your table. But what you do doesn't change the RAW.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
You’re saying the RAW is incomplete because the RAW doesn’t support what you want the feat to actually do.
the RAW is clear.
if you’re worried about the feat being more generally useful than you want, that was also intentionally done by the design team.
https://youtu.be/Fmae5NdxDfM 25:31 to 32:35 Crawford talks about the feats in a fairly detailed way. 31:30 reiterates that the feats properties work regardless of the damage source. Sling, fist, or spell.
Cool. What's a space? Because if we're including verticality, then we're now dealing in 125 cubic feet spaces that medium creatures will naturally be taller than.
As far as the rule books are concerned, space is consistently used in reference to squares when playing on a grid. And only on the horizontal plane. The Z-axis is something else entirely.
And how often does one face a hot air balloon in D&D, exactly? Please..... talk about arguing in bad faith. (Edit: You clearly missed the word 'usually' or at least dismissed it).
That the Devs didn't put disclaimers in for every exception no matter how rare does nothing to deny the clear implied intent.
While there are no facing rules, if you are fighting someone one on one, it is reasonable to any sane person to assume you are doing so facing each other. Again, you are going full rules lawyer here. Fair game to some extent, this being the rules and game mechanics section, but even so....
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
Actually relative target size is also a factor. The target can be max one size class larger than you. So no shoving adult true dragons around (even if they are flying). And a halfling could not shove a Pegasus around either (even if it is flying). That is how relative mass is taken into account.
Size, not weight. RAW. Sorry.
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.
You’re saying the RAW is incomplete because the RAW doesn’t support what you want the feat to actually do.
the RAW is clear.
if you’re worried about the feat being more generally useful than you want, that was also intentionally done by the design team.
https://youtu.be/Fmae5NdxDfM 25:31 to 32:35 Crawford talks about the feats in a fairly detailed way. 31:30 reiterates that the feats properties work regardless of the damage source. Sling, fist, or spell.
He also says though around 28:22 that the crushing feat is about how it feels to be hit by that type of weapon, crushed or smashed or hurled 'around.' So it is clearly intended in the obvious manner, that it is the weapon blow which causes the target to move. As such, it would be clearly unintended for the weapon to hurl the target in some direction that makes no sense for the direction of the attack itself.
Plus 'around' implies laterally, not 'up.'
Also this discussion was when these feats were still in UA.
"crushed or smashed or hurled around"
It moves them 5', into any unoccupied space. Raw. Sorry you're dying on this hill but you;re wrong if you disagree. Objectively. Obviously. Clearly. You've simply decided to fight the RAW but the RAW doesn't care.
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.
And how often does one face a hot air balloon in D&D, exactly? Please..... talk about arguing in bad faith. (Edit: You clearly missed the word 'usually' or at least dismissed it).
That the Devs didn't put disclaimers in for every exception no matter how rare does nothing to deny the clear implied intent.
While there are no facing rules, if you are fighting someone one on one, it is reasonable to any sane person to assume you are doing so facing each other. Again, you are going full rules lawyer here. Fair game to some extent, this being the rules and game mechanics section, but even so....
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
I'd say that direction was a pretty central topic in this discussion and, with the WotC text failing to provide the relevant information, you don't get to dictate which factors people get to choose to consider.
I don't get to dictate them, correct. The rules do. The rules don't limit the ability by weight so it isn't limited by weight. The rules similarly don't limit the target by creature type, age, coloration, religion, national origin, they're not limited by level, HD, bonuses to saves, whether or not they're proficient in the Yarting, none of that. Just size, and if the destination is unoccupied. Period.
If you don't get to dictate then stop it. For DMs considering a context of realism, in absence of clear guidelines, they can consider what they like.
You confuse me telling you what the rules say for me dictating what you must do at your tables. You can do whatever you want at your table. But what you do doesn't change the RAW.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
You’re saying the RAW is incomplete because the RAW doesn’t support what you want the feat to actually do.
the RAW is clear.
if you’re worried about the feat being more generally useful than you want, that was also intentionally done by the design team.
https://youtu.be/Fmae5NdxDfM 25:31 to 32:35 Crawford talks about the feats in a fairly detailed way. 31:30 reiterates that the feats properties work regardless of the damage source. Sling, fist, or spell.
RAW is certainly clear for what I expect the crusher feat to do.
I expect that, when I hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, that I can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space [on the map], provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
There's no doubt that the crusher feat can do this and what I want is totally within RAW.
What's making you so angry is that we're questioning whether RAW supports what you want, being able to hit a horse-sized creature with attacks including using sling stones and being able to knock it 5 feet into the air. That's what I see as unsupported by RAW. The DM determines logical options.
NO MENTION is made of your stretched interpretation that the crusher physical feat can knock a creature that is significantly larger than you (and potentially many times heavier) 5 ft into the air.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
As a physical feat I see this as much more akin to the Battle Master pushing attack: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to drive the target back. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and if the target is Large or smaller, it must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, you push the target up to 15 feet away from you.
I was only quoting the Dev's tweet in reference to Kota's post #122, not to specifically adress the Crusher feat as it's completly different wording. Moving 5 feet can be in any direction in relation to you while pushing 5 feet away may not. (according to the Dev, as i personally rule that it can if every space pushed is further away from you i.e diagonal up)
Pushing Attack is more similar to Open Hand for this ruling. Crusher on the other hand relate more to Shove Aside.
RAW is certainly clear for what I expect the crusher feat to do.
I expect that, when I hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, that I can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space [on the map], provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
The map is a 2D representation though, unoccupied spaces/squares in the air do exist otherwise creature jumping, flying or occupying higher terrain would not be possible. So would burrowing one. The 9 empty spaces/squares above a creature are all unoccupied space and i'm not just talking about Crusher specifically but in general.
Once you reconcile that, when a creature move 5 feet to an unoccupied space, it means any unoccupied space/square adjacent to it in 2D or 3D as they're equally valid, wether it is jumping or shoved by Crusher.
RAW is certainly clear for what I expect the crusher feat to do.
I expect that, when I hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, that I can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space [on the map], provided the target is no more than one size larger than you. There's no doubt that the crusher feat can do this and what I want is totally within RAW.
What's making you so angry is that we're questioning whether RAW supports what you want, being able to hit a horse-sized creature with attacks including using sling stones and being able to knock it 5 feet into the air. That's what I see as unsupported by RAW. The DM determines logical options.
NO MENTION is made of your stretched interpretation that the crusher physical feat can knock a creature that is significantly larger than you (and potentially many times heavier) 5 ft into the air.
The map is a 2D representation though, unoccupied spaces/squares in the air do exist otherwise creature jumping, flying or occupying higher terrain would not be possible. So would burrowing one. The 9 empty spaces/squares above a creature are all unoccupied space and i'm not just talking about Crusher specifically but in general.
Once you reconcile that, when a creature move 5 feet to an unoccupied space, it means any unoccupied space/square adjacent to it in 2D or 3D as they're equally valid, wether it is jumping or shoved by Crusher.
I'd certainly agree that 2D or 3D are potentially equally valid dependent on RAI and DM interpretation.
We've had a video go by not mention this. We've got other physical abilities that don't add vertical movement. We've got the implausibility of a medium creature hitting a horse in the air. I think that there's plenty there to be left to DM adjudication.
Don't get me wrong though. My next to use character is Stu Pendous, a goliath maul wielder whose first feat will be crusher and, on a hit on smaller creatures or on high damage or critical hits on larger opponents, I'd certainly sometimes ask the DM if I can launch them into the air. It sounds like fun. I just don't think that, depending on RAI and DM interpretation, it's necessarily a given.
Personally, if I were in a situation to adjudicate on this, on a relatively strong crusher hit I'd allow the creature to be knocked up to a height of up to 5 ft at a distance of 2ft6 so that its landing position might end at a distance of 5 ft. I appreciate that this might be homebrew but this is what I would do.
I'd certainly agree that 2D or 3D are potentially equally valid dependent on RAI and DM interpretation.
Unfortunatly not much guideline is given about 3D but a DM interpretating only 2D woud miss altitude notion
A DM could: interpret only 2D (to reject an altitude notion that they may have considered), interpret a default as 2D, or interpret 3D. That's the DM's choice.
Because there is never any correlation between size and weight, right..... They do not have official creature weights. Are you arguing that creatures are therefore weightless?
The feat in question only mentions size. You're free to homebrew additional restrictions that are not currently written into the rules.
Again, good luck convincing any DM to take that clause at face value out of context with the actual crushing attack causing it. It is them you'd have to convince, not RAW.
Again, you're conflating RAW with a DM making a ruling. DMs are free to make whatever homebrew ruling they want at any time. No one forces DMs to follow the RAW. They are not computers executing code. They're people, with generally human level judgement. They have the power to make whatever ruling they want.
Whether someone can or cannot convince someone to rule one way or another is about as disingenuous a way to phrase the argument as you can get, BTW. You're trying to phrase this as someone trying to change their DMs mind, to badger them, or trick them, to coerce.
But none of us are each others DMs here, I'd imagine. Me telling you what the RAW says has literally zero effect on whether I as a DM will or will not allow a player of mine to crusher something 5' up or not. It has no impact on whether I'd try to convince another DM to let me make a character that can do it or not. No one here is "trying to convince their DM". It is a bad faith argument.
When we discuss the RAW, all we're discussing is what the actual basic, common, shared reference text actually says. The RAW is objective and we can discuss it because it is written in black and white and we all have the same exact text to look to. Knowing what it says gives us a common point of understanding. Can you decide you don't care what RAW is? Totally.
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.
RAW is certainly clear for what I expect the crusher feat to do.
I expect that, when I hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, that I can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space [on the map], provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
There's no doubt that the crusher feat can do this and what I want is totally within RAW.
Cool, matter settled then? Crusher lets you move the target 5' into any unoccupied space. Yay! World peace next!
What's making you so angry is that we're questioning whether RAW supports what you want, being able to hit a horse-sized creature with attacks including using sling stones and being able to knock it 5 feet into the air. That's what I see as unsupported by RAW. The DM determines logical options.
Aww I spoke too soon.
lol. No one here is "angry". And, if they were, it isn't because you 'bravely dared to ask a question'. You're not asking a question. Your question was answered a long time ago and now you're arguing against black and white text that is crystal clear and unambiguous.
The feat tells you "you can move" them 5' into an unoccupied space. Full stop. It grants you permission. RAW Permission: Granted.
Can the DM veto the RAW? Of course
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.
Again, though, in terms of RAI, with respect to the video linked, it is very clear that the intent is that the moving/shoving/whatevering is the direct result of the impact of the blunt force.
So if something was tossed directly up, what, an upswing of some sort between the legs?
I could see up and away, but straight up with a normal weapon blow makes no sense whatsoever.
The feat contain some irregularities as it call for a shove, which push in the fluff text but in actual effect, it move the target 5 feet instead. We all know that move is directional and pushed away is not as much. Wether it make sense or not is irrelevant when examining the ruletext there's plenty of exemples in the game where RAW trump what make sense.
Now the other direction, using telekinesis (bonus action) first to toss them up, then crusher via a weapon strike to bunt them (5' is hardly 'batting out of the park), then we are back to timing questions regarding falling and bonus actions, at least.
I agree with you if you meant to refer to the feat Telekinetic instead. Because the spell Telekinesis use an action rather than a bonus action, and a creature lifted upward is suspended in mid-air, which means there would be no fall.
Again, though, in terms of RAI, with respect to the video linked, it is very clear that the intent is that the moving/shoving/whatevering is the direct result of the impact of the blunt force.
So if something was tossed directly up, what, an upswing of some sort between the legs?
I could see up and away, but straight up with a normal weapon blow makes no sense whatsoever.
The feat contain some irregularities as it call for a shove, which push in the fluff text but in actual effect, it move the target 5 feet instead. We all know that move is directional and pushed away is not as much. Wether it make sense or not is irrelevant when examining the ruletext there's plenty of exemples in the game where RAW trump what make sense.
Now the other direction, using telekinesis (bonus action) first to toss them up, then crusher via a weapon strike to bunt them (5' is hardly 'batting out of the park), then we are back to timing questions regarding falling and bonus actions, at least.
I agree with you if you meant to refer to the feat Telekinetic instead. Because the spell Telekinesis use an action rather than a bonus action, and a creature lifted upward is suspended in mid-air, which means there would be no fall.
Was referring to the feat, yes. Name correction accepted.
It still is using telekinesis. You used the correct word. The fact a spell is named Telekinesis doesn't change the fact that telekinesis is the correct word for what the feat does. There is a spell called Teleport that doesn't stop there for being teleport effects.
Anyway... what'll always strike me as strange about this conversation is the part where people have trouble with the believability of the crusher part. Not the part where the guy uses his mind alone to move the creature... but the part where he hits them with a blunt force object to move them. Hitting them causing movement = unbelievable. Using mind magic to move them = A-OK. So weird.
This is fantasy, guys. Make believe.
Just flavor the entire combo as telekinesis if it helps you visualize it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
... Anyway... what'll always strike me as strange about this conversation is the part where people have trouble with the believability of the crusher part. Not the part where the guy uses his mind alone to move the creature... but the part where he hits them with a blunt force object to move them. Hitting them causing movement = unbelievable. Using mind magic to move them = A-OK. So weird. ...
If a DM wants to consider physical limitations to physical aspects of the game that should be down to them and should be respected. Of course, we are also in a game where people can cast wishes, move through dimensions and all manner of other fanciful things. That's all OK. It's up to a DM to decide if it's OK with them if a character in any condition will or won't be physically able to, say, knock a horse 5 ft into the air with any old blunt stick. If people want to run a video style game also OK. It's a choice. But insinuating that people are acting weirdly because of having a different viewpoint to you, not OK.
It still is using telekinesis. You used the correct word. The fact a spell is named Telekinesis doesn't change the fact that telekinesis is the correct word for what the feat does. There is a spell called Teleport that doesn't stop there for being teleport effects.
Anyway... what'll always strike me as strange about this conversation is the part where people have trouble with the believability of the crusher part. Not the part where the guy uses his mind alone to move the creature... but the part where he hits them with a blunt force object to move them. Hitting them causing movement = unbelievable. Using mind magic to move them = A-OK. So weird.
This is fantasy, guys. Make believe.
Just flavor the entire combo as telekinesis if it helps you visualize it.
You again are being disingenuous.
Nope. 100% authentic.
The fact anyone has a hard time with the blunt object moving someone but then somehow they're okay with the invisible unexplainable magic force of telekinesis doing the same thing is genuinely baffling to me.
It is fantasy. Make believe. None of it needs to or even should "be realistic". Magic isn't realistic. Dragons aren't realistic. None of this stuff is. Nor should it. Nor needs it be.
The game has rules. In this case Crusher is black and white, obvious and clear as day telling you you can move someone 5' into an unoccupied space. That's it. That's all there is to it. That is the rule.
Like the rule? Doesn't matter. Follow the rule? Doesn't matter. That IS the rule. No amount of wailing or gnashing of teeth here on this forum changes what is written on the pages of the rulebook.
I personally have hit someone hard enough to knock them back 5'. Knocking someone off their feet is an actual saying in English.
However knocking someone 5' straight up is a completely different matter. And you are arguing no limit as long as unoccupied and within 5', so even knocking someone to your own left or right rear flank.
Have you personally used telekinesis to knock a dragon 5' away from you too? No? You don't have personal experience from which to draw from on how every ability might work in this fantasy make believe game?
Crusher is NOT any separate telekinesis, even when it results from a telekinesis inflicted blow. It is not a separate force, but merely the existing force being strong enough or well enough placed to carry the target along with it.
I'm not sure that is up to you. In fact I'm certain it isn't. People can describe their actions however they like. Don't be so quick to try to tell people how to imagine their own make believe game.
How people describe stuff in their games is up to them. If one guy wants to describe it as telekinetically knocking someone around... you, genuinely, want to ruin his fun? Why? For what reason? Let people play their own games, you worry about yours.
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 fact anyone has a hard time with the blunt object moving someone but then somehow they're okay with the invisible unexplainable magic force of telekinesis doing the same thing is genuinely baffling to me. ....
You again are being disingenuous.
The argument is not about a "blunt object moving someone". We all agree that the crusher feat enables this. edit: We're talking about [for instance] whether you can hit a creature of "one size larger than you" and knock it up to a 5 ft height. You've followed this thread and know its arguments.
This discussion topic would have been shorter and more helpful if it was done with more courtesy and respect (note: I am including myself in this statement). Please refrain from insinuating that someone is out to ruin someone's fun just because they don't agree with you. It is also important to note that everyone is entitled to their own opinion of what is RAW vs non-RAW.
I personally enjoy these threads from a hypothetical level and appreciate that some individuals here are very adept at finding relevant sage advice (such as JC's comments on the knock back option on open hand). For me personally, this thread has derailed into a virtual car accident. I don't want to look anymore but find myself looking anyway.
The feat you are citing (crusher) applies to all blunt damage attacks. This mean it applies to melee hits too. Are you saying that the Crusher feat somehow applies a telekinetic force that has nothing to do with crushing?
No, you're applying the same fallacy to Rav you did to me. The statement "not all animals are ducks" does notmean all animals are pigeons or that no animals are ducks, just as "some animals are ducks" does not mean all animals are ducks (and it also does not mean "no animals are pigeons"). In context, Rav is saying that some people may flavor the Crusher feat telekinetically - not that all people must do so.
Tasha's is emphatically clear that you should feel free to flavor abilities in ways that are fun for you. Rav's flavor, your flavor, and my flavor can all be different. So long as we're not having any mechanical impacts with our flavor, none of it matters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, it isn't. Please stop. The rule is super crystal clear. There is no ambiguity here.
If the creature is no more than one size larger, you can move them 5', but only into unoccupied spaces.
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 saying the RAW is incomplete because the RAW doesn’t support what you want the feat to actually do.
the RAW is clear.
if you’re worried about the feat being more generally useful than you want, that was also intentionally done by the design team.
https://youtu.be/Fmae5NdxDfM
25:31 to 32:35 Crawford talks about the feats in a fairly detailed way. 31:30 reiterates that the feats properties work regardless of the damage source. Sling, fist, or spell.
Cool. What's a space? Because if we're including verticality, then we're now dealing in 125 cubic feet spaces that medium creatures will naturally be taller than.
As far as the rule books are concerned, space is consistently used in reference to squares when playing on a grid. And only on the horizontal plane. The Z-axis is something else entirely.
Size, not weight. RAW. Sorry.
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.
"crushed or smashed or hurled around"
It moves them 5', into any unoccupied space. Raw. Sorry you're dying on this hill but you;re wrong if you disagree. Objectively. Obviously. Clearly. You've simply decided to fight the RAW but the RAW doesn't care.
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.
RAW is certainly clear for what I expect the crusher feat to do.
I expect that, when I hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, that I can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space [on the map], provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
There's no doubt that the crusher feat can do this and what I want is totally within RAW.
What's making you so angry is that we're questioning whether RAW supports what you want, being able to hit a horse-sized creature with attacks including using sling stones and being able to knock it 5 feet into the air. That's what I see as unsupported by RAW. The DM determines logical options.
Thank you for the helpful video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmae5NdxDfM&t=1524s.
NO MENTION is made of your stretched interpretation that the crusher physical feat can knock a creature that is significantly larger than you (and potentially many times heavier) 5 ft into the air.
I was only quoting the Dev's tweet in reference to Kota's post #122, not to specifically adress the Crusher feat as it's completly different wording. Moving 5 feet can be in any direction in relation to you while pushing 5 feet away may not. (according to the Dev, as i personally rule that it can if every space pushed is further away from you i.e diagonal up)
Pushing Attack is more similar to Open Hand for this ruling. Crusher on the other hand relate more to Shove Aside.
The map is a 2D representation though, unoccupied spaces/squares in the air do exist otherwise creature jumping, flying or occupying higher terrain would not be possible. So would burrowing one. The 9 empty spaces/squares above a creature are all unoccupied space and i'm not just talking about Crusher specifically but in general.
Once you reconcile that, when a creature move 5 feet to an unoccupied space, it means any unoccupied space/square adjacent to it in 2D or 3D as they're equally valid, wether it is jumping or shoved by Crusher.
I'd certainly agree that 2D or 3D are potentially equally valid dependent on RAI and DM interpretation.
We've had a video go by not mention this. We've got other physical abilities that don't add vertical movement. We've got the implausibility of a medium creature hitting a horse in the air. I think that there's plenty there to be left to DM adjudication.
Don't get me wrong though. My next to use character is Stu Pendous, a goliath maul wielder whose first feat will be crusher and, on a hit on smaller creatures or on high damage or critical hits on larger opponents, I'd certainly sometimes ask the DM if I can launch them into the air. It sounds like fun. I just don't think that, depending on RAI and DM interpretation, it's necessarily a given.
Personally, if I were in a situation to adjudicate on this, on a relatively strong crusher hit I'd allow the creature to be knocked up to a height of up to 5 ft at a distance of 2ft6 so that its landing position might end at a distance of 5 ft. I appreciate that this might be homebrew but this is what I would do.
Unfortunatly not much guideline is given about 3D but a DM interpretating only 2D woud miss altitude notion
A DM could: interpret only 2D (to reject an altitude notion that they may have considered), interpret a default as 2D, or interpret 3D. That's the DM's choice.
Again, you're conflating RAW with a DM making a ruling. DMs are free to make whatever homebrew ruling they want at any time. No one forces DMs to follow the RAW. They are not computers executing code. They're people, with generally human level judgement. They have the power to make whatever ruling they want.
Whether someone can or cannot convince someone to rule one way or another is about as disingenuous a way to phrase the argument as you can get, BTW. You're trying to phrase this as someone trying to change their DMs mind, to badger them, or trick them, to coerce.
But none of us are each others DMs here, I'd imagine. Me telling you what the RAW says has literally zero effect on whether I as a DM will or will not allow a player of mine to crusher something 5' up or not. It has no impact on whether I'd try to convince another DM to let me make a character that can do it or not. No one here is "trying to convince their DM". It is a bad faith argument.
When we discuss the RAW, all we're discussing is what the actual basic, common, shared reference text actually says. The RAW is objective and we can discuss it because it is written in black and white and we all have the same exact text to look to. Knowing what it says gives us a common point of understanding. Can you decide you don't care what RAW is? Totally.
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.
Cool, matter settled then? Crusher lets you move the target 5' into any unoccupied space. Yay! World peace next!
Aww I spoke too soon.
lol. No one here is "angry". And, if they were, it isn't because you 'bravely dared to ask a question'. You're not asking a question. Your question was answered a long time ago and now you're arguing against black and white text that is crystal clear and unambiguous.
The feat tells you "you can move" them 5' into an unoccupied space. Full stop. It grants you permission. RAW Permission: Granted.
Can the DM veto the RAW? Of course
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 feat contain some irregularities as it call for a shove, which push in the fluff text but in actual effect, it move the target 5 feet instead. We all know that move is directional and pushed away is not as much. Wether it make sense or not is irrelevant when examining the ruletext there's plenty of exemples in the game where RAW trump what make sense.
I agree with you if you meant to refer to the feat Telekinetic instead. Because the spell Telekinesis use an action rather than a bonus action, and a creature lifted upward is suspended in mid-air, which means there would be no fall.
It still is using telekinesis. You used the correct word. The fact a spell is named Telekinesis doesn't change the fact that telekinesis is the correct word for what the feat does. There is a spell called Teleport that doesn't stop there for being teleport effects.
Anyway... what'll always strike me as strange about this conversation is the part where people have trouble with the believability of the crusher part. Not the part where the guy uses his mind alone to move the creature... but the part where he hits them with a blunt force object to move them. Hitting them causing movement = unbelievable. Using mind magic to move them = A-OK. So weird.
This is fantasy, guys. Make believe.
Just flavor the entire combo as telekinesis if it helps you visualize it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If a DM wants to consider physical limitations to physical aspects of the game that should be down to them and should be respected.
Of course, we are also in a game where people can cast wishes, move through dimensions and all manner of other fanciful things. That's all OK.
It's up to a DM to decide if it's OK with them if a character in any condition will or won't be physically able to, say, knock a horse 5 ft into the air with any old blunt stick.
If people want to run a video style game also OK. It's a choice.
But insinuating that people are acting weirdly because of having a different viewpoint to you, not OK.
Nope. 100% authentic.
The fact anyone has a hard time with the blunt object moving someone but then somehow they're okay with the invisible unexplainable magic force of telekinesis doing the same thing is genuinely baffling to me.
It is fantasy. Make believe. None of it needs to or even should "be realistic". Magic isn't realistic. Dragons aren't realistic. None of this stuff is. Nor should it. Nor needs it be.
The game has rules. In this case Crusher is black and white, obvious and clear as day telling you you can move someone 5' into an unoccupied space. That's it. That's all there is to it. That is the rule.
Like the rule? Doesn't matter. Follow the rule? Doesn't matter. That IS the rule. No amount of wailing or gnashing of teeth here on this forum changes what is written on the pages of the rulebook.
Have you personally used telekinesis to knock a dragon 5' away from you too? No? You don't have personal experience from which to draw from on how every ability might work in this fantasy make believe game?
I'm not sure that is up to you. In fact I'm certain it isn't. People can describe their actions however they like. Don't be so quick to try to tell people how to imagine their own make believe game.
How people describe stuff in their games is up to them. If one guy wants to describe it as telekinetically knocking someone around... you, genuinely, want to ruin his fun? Why? For what reason? Let people play their own games, you worry about yours.
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 again are being disingenuous.
The argument is not about a "blunt object moving someone".
We all agree that the crusher feat enables this.
edit: We're talking about [for instance] whether you can hit a creature of "one size larger than you" and knock it up to a 5 ft height.
You've followed this thread and know its arguments.
This discussion topic would have been shorter and more helpful if it was done with more courtesy and respect (note: I am including myself in this statement). Please refrain from insinuating that someone is out to ruin someone's fun just because they don't agree with you. It is also important to note that everyone is entitled to their own opinion of what is RAW vs non-RAW.
I personally enjoy these threads from a hypothetical level and appreciate that some individuals here are very adept at finding relevant sage advice (such as JC's comments on the knock back option on open hand). For me personally, this thread has derailed into a virtual car accident. I don't want to look anymore but find myself looking anyway.
No, you're applying the same fallacy to Rav you did to me. The statement "not all animals are ducks" does not mean all animals are pigeons or that no animals are ducks, just as "some animals are ducks" does not mean all animals are ducks (and it also does not mean "no animals are pigeons"). In context, Rav is saying that some people may flavor the Crusher feat telekinetically - not that all people must do so.
Tasha's is emphatically clear that you should feel free to flavor abilities in ways that are fun for you. Rav's flavor, your flavor, and my flavor can all be different. So long as we're not having any mechanical impacts with our flavor, none of it matters.