It is only true that no RAI evidence supports the claim when you willfully ignore the Dev clearly stating that it is meant to be from the impact of the blow. Still waiting for you to explain how hitting someone hurls them towards you or even straight up.
We often see in boxing an opponent moving uncontrollably after a solid punch. The force of the blow can force someone backward, upward, and even cause yit to move sideways or forward by loosing footing. The cause is not as important as the net effect, which is that 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 can explain it in various ways as you can see.
Vertical space exist in D&D, which flying creatures occupy and that we can see expressed on maps with different height features for exemple. This is not about the feat but the world in general.
A DM can certainly decide to limit itself to horizontal axis only if it want but it would be very limiting and unrealistic. Contradictions would happen soon enought.
This is about the feat. That's what we've been talking about.
You're talking a medium-sized creature knocking a horse-sized creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick! I don't think that's realistic.
Vertical space exist in D&D, which flying creatures occupy and that we can see expressed on maps with different height features for exemple. This is not about the feat but the world in general.
A DM can certainly decide to limit itself to horizontal axis only if it want but it would be very limiting and unrealistic. Contradictions would happen soon enought.
This is about the feat. That's what we've been talking about.
You're talking a medium-sized creature knocking a horse-sized creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick! I don't think that's realistic.
I agree player characters can often do things that are not realistic. But claiming there's no vertical space as a way to limit the feat is what's unrealistic. Or shall i say inconsistentis more what i meant.
Vertical space exist in D&D, which flying creatures occupy and that we can see expressed on maps with different height features for exemple. This is not about the feat but the world in general.
A DM can certainly decide to limit itself to horizontal axis only if it want but it would be very limiting and unrealistic. Contradictions would happen soon enought.
This is about the feat. That's what we've been talking about.
You're talking a medium-sized creature knocking a horse-sized creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick! I don't think that's realistic.
I agree player characters can often do things that are not realistic. But claiming there's no vertical space as a way to limit the feat is what's unrealistic. Or shall i say inconsistentis more what i meant.
If you want player characters to do physical things with an increased lack of realism that's a valid gaming choice you may take.
You know what I have claimed and that is not it. You are manipulating words.
... In a discussion of combat in which there is a clear within rules of combat definition of space, then a logical interpretation that may be taken is that the rules of combat definition of space may, potentially, be used.
It is only true that no RAI evidence supports the claim when you willfully ignore the Dev clearly stating that it is meant to be from the impact of the blow. Still waiting for you to explain how hitting someone hurls them towards you or even straight up.
We often see in boxing an opponent moving uncontrollably after a solid punch. The force of the blow can force someone backward, upward, and even cause yit to move sideways or forward by loosing footing. The cause is not as important as the net effect, which is that 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 can explain it in various ways as you can see.
Yeah, over the next couple minutes, perhaps next thirty seconds or so, and far more often backwards than forwards and they never stumble 'upwards.'
And the situation you are describing is far more than just an in the moment toss, much more like a temporary confusion effect from a blow to the head.
Edit: Moreover it is not in any direction controlled by the boxer that hit them. Bad analogy is bad.
Knocking upward is possible it take considerable power to do so though. Bull do so with headbutts. We're talking about an impressive feat prowess here that most characters can't do, being unable to hurl around people where they want when they attack them with bare fist and whatnot. In real life most people don't control direction they crush their oponents as they're pushed back. But the feat is not pushing away, the move is directional as written. It may not make sense to everyone in all situation for sure.
Vertical space exist in D&D, which flying creatures occupy and that we can see expressed on maps with different height features for exemple. This is not about the feat but the world in general.
A DM can certainly decide to limit itself to horizontal axis only if it want but it would be very limiting and unrealistic. Contradictions would happen soon enought.
This is about the feat. That's what we've been talking about.
You're talking a medium-sized creature knocking a horse-sized creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick! I don't think that's realistic.
I agree player characters can often do things that are not realistic. But claiming there's no vertical space as a way to limit the feat is what's unrealistic. Or shall i say inconsistentis more what i meant.
If you want player characters to do physical things with an increased lack of realism that's a valid gaming choice you may take.
You know what I have claimed and that is not it. You are manipulating words.
... In a discussion of combat in which there is a clear within rules of combat definition of space, then a logical interpretation that may be taken is that the rules of combat definition of space may, potentially, be used.
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.
We've got three bits of information: action: "you can move it" distance: "5 feet" destination: "to an unoccupied space".
A commonly applied ruling in 5e is that movement distances can work with diagonals can work to allow a 7.07 ft movement to get to the centre of a diagonally adjacent square. We might further transpose this convention in the way it is commonly used with flying and swimming creatures which, for these creatures, allows further movement up and down. For instance, we might imagine a flying creature flying both to a square diagonally while also going diagonally up so as to cover the 8.66 ft distance to get there. All this can be made to fit with interpretations of RAW.
In reference to the destination of an unoccupied space, a creature's space in combat is defined in 5e as "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and "the area it needs to fight effectively". This does not directly relate to vertical distance and DMs may be at liberty to interpret that a typical goliath (at "between 7 and 8 feet tall") may require higher ceiling heights to enable it to effectively fight than might be needed by a typical ("stand well under 5 feet tall") dwarf.
So can one DM interpret that a movement of "5 feet to an unoccupied space" can include a vertical movement? Sure. "5 feet" of movement is mentioned and, by conventions used in flying and swimming, 7.07 ft or 8.66 ft of movement diagonally upwards to a 5 ft height above a space that the creature might occupy could be permitted.
And can another DM interpret that a movement of "5 feet to an unoccupied space" by a creature whose weight isn't countered can't include a vertical movement? Sure. A purpose of movement "to an unoccupied space" can be interpreted and, as a location, 5 ft above the ground can't be occupied by a creature whose weight isn't somehow countered, a DM would be entitled to rule that this would not be a valid destination.
Can a player just decide that their character can use the crusher feat to knock a creature up to one size large than them to a height of 5 ft? No, not without their DM's consent. You're only working on an interpretation.
Vertical space exist in D&D, which flying creatures occupy and that we can see expressed on maps with different height features for exemple. This is not about the feat but the world in general.
A DM can certainly decide to limit itself to horizontal axis only if it want but it would be very limiting and unrealistic. Contradictions would happen soon enought.
This is about the feat. That's what we've been talking about.
You're talking a medium-sized creature knocking a horse-sized creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick! I don't think that's realistic.
I agree player characters can often do things that are not realistic. But claiming there's no vertical space as a way to limit the feat is what's unrealistic. Or shall i say inconsistentis more what i meant.
If you want player characters to do physical things with an increased lack of realism that's a valid gaming choice you may take. ...
It's a valid choice because it's RAW.
And nitpicking 5ft up swings as "unrealistic" when a barbarian can jump 21 ft in the air seems....odd
It's certainly a valid choice because of RAW.
Beastial Soul and Totem Spirit (tiger) barbarians both develop some great abilities to jump.
This does not mean that a DM can't take a straightforward interpretation of an ambiguous text to refute the idea that an 8 str elf... could punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft.
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.
If you want player characters to do physical things with an increased lack of realism that's a valid gaming choice you may take. ...
It's a valid choice because it's RAW.
And nitpicking 5ft up swings as "unrealistic" when a barbarian can jump 21 ft in the air seems....odd
It's certainly a valid choice because of RAW.
Beastial Soul and Totem Spirit (tiger) barbarians both develop some great abilities to jump.
This does not mean that a DM can't take a straightforward interpretation of an ambiguous text to refute the idea that an 8 str elf... could punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft.
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.
DMs are always free to homebrew you are 100% correct.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you want player characters to do physical things with an increased lack of realism that's a valid gaming choice you may take. ...
It's a valid choice because it's RAW.
And nitpicking 5ft up swings as "unrealistic" when a barbarian can jump 21 ft in the air seems....odd
It's certainly a valid choice because of RAW.
Beastial Soul and Totem Spirit (tiger) barbarians both develop some great abilities to jump.
This does not mean that a DM can't take a straightforward interpretation of an ambiguous text to refute the idea that an 8 str elf... could punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft.
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.
DMs are always free to homebrew you are 100% correct.
True. But hitting someone 5 ft up with crusher isn't homebrew. It's just a far fetched interpretation.
Are we really going to keep doing this dance? The only stipulation is they're knocked 5 feet into an unoccupied space. Because each space is a 5 foot square. You can't knock them straight up 5 feet into that hypothetical space because that space doesn't exist. This is because spaces don't have a height; unless you're trying to impose them. And diagonals are utterly pointless because (A) spaces don't have a height and (B) there's no functional point if they're just going to "fall" back down another 5 feet onto the ground.
Which means now you're just trying to cheese this because a ledge might be only 5 feet lower or there's a strange AoE that's just above everyone else's heads but somehow doesn't affect anyone. Seriously, if we're going to even pretend to entertain the Sickening Radiance in the sky example then we have to clearly define height for spaces. And these heights, RAW, do not exist. Which means engaging in homebrew. And this is a RAW forum, so it's a moot point.
So what should they be? five-foot cubes? 125 cubic feet of volume? What does this mean for characters taller than the "space" like Dragonborn and Goliaths?
And we all know you can't add something the feat doesn't include (i.e. silence is not consent).
So, please, explain your position. Because I'd love for this to make even an inkling of sense.
Here's an example of someone saying spaces not having a vertical component....
Are we really going to keep doing this dance? The only stipulation is they're knocked 5 feet into an unoccupied space. Because each space is a 5 foot square. You can't knock them straight up 5 feet into that hypothetical space because that space doesn't exist. This is because spaces don't have a height; unless you're trying to impose them. And diagonals are utterly pointless because (A) spaces don't have a height and (B) there's no functional point if they're just going to "fall" back down another 5 feet onto the ground.
Which means now you're just trying to cheese this because a ledge might be only 5 feet lower or there's a strange AoE that's just above everyone else's heads but somehow doesn't affect anyone. Seriously, if we're going to even pretend to entertain the Sickening Radiance in the sky example then we have to clearly define height for spaces. And these heights, RAW, do not exist. Which means engaging in homebrew. And this is a RAW forum, so it's a moot point.
So what should they be? five-foot cubes? 125 cubic feet of volume? What does this mean for characters taller than the "space" like Dragonborn and Goliaths?
And we all know you can't add something the feat doesn't include (i.e. silence is not consent).
So, please, explain your position. Because I'd love for this to make even an inkling of sense.
Here's an example of someone saying spaces not having a vertical component....
A creature's space in combat is defined in 5e as [short version] "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and "the area it needs to fight effectively"
[long version]
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.
From that space a creature can certainly reach to height and, while a gnome with a dagger cannot reach very far, a bugbear PC with a polearm could reach a lot further and a jumping, barbarian bugbear with a polearm could reach further still.
However, 5e combat spaces, as defined as areas, don't, in themselves, necessarily have height although difficult terrain and areas of sloping ground could be exceptions to this.
If you want player characters to do physical things with an increased lack of realism that's a valid gaming choice you may take. ...
It's a valid choice because it's RAW.
And nitpicking 5ft up swings as "unrealistic" when a barbarian can jump 21 ft in the air seems....odd
It's certainly a valid choice because of RAW.
Beastial Soul and Totem Spirit (tiger) barbarians both develop some great abilities to jump.
This does not mean that a DM can't take a straightforward interpretation of an ambiguous text to refute the idea that an 8 str elf... could punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft.
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.
regarding your elf example, I’d say it would probably be an issue if the table if there was no communication. If the DM is arbitrarily nerfing the feature based on a completely unreasonable expectation that strength is required to use the feat.
we requiring monks to invest in strength to use the feat? No.
we require monks to have strength for stunning strike to work? No.
We often see in boxing an opponent moving uncontrollably after a solid punch. The force of the blow can force someone backward, upward, and even cause yit to move sideways or forward by loosing footing. The cause is not as important as the net effect, which is that 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 can explain it in various ways as you can see.
This is about the feat. That's what we've been talking about.
You're talking a medium-sized creature knocking a horse-sized creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick! I don't think that's realistic.
I agree player characters can often do things that are not realistic. But claiming there's no vertical space as a way to limit the feat is what's unrealistic. Or shall i say inconsistentis more what i meant.
If you want player characters to do physical things with an increased lack of realism that's a valid gaming choice you may take.
You know what I have claimed and that is not it. You are manipulating words.
I am claiming that:
and that
Knocking upward is possible it take considerable power to do so though. Bull do so with headbutts. We're talking about an impressive feat prowess here that most characters can't do, being unable to hurl around people where they want when they attack them with bare fist and whatnot. In real life most people don't control direction they crush their oponents as they're pushed back. But the feat is not pushing away, the move is directional as written. It may not make sense to everyone in all situation for sure.
It's a valid choice because it's RAW.
And nitpicking 5ft up swings as "unrealistic" when a barbarian can jump 21 ft in the air seems....odd
It was a general statement i did not say you claim this (someone else did that claim) so please dont make false accusation.
In your reply to me, who were you talking about as "claiming there's no vertical space"?
No one in particular, it's a general statement.
Just a rhetorical statement with no particular application to push your argument with reference to a claim no one is making?
I believe it's 3 times the highest jump ever recorded so that barbarian breaks world record for real! ☺
It was claimed in this thread if you've been following the discussion from the begining.
Recently presented claims:
Then perhaps you could have said that in your reply to me instead of this:
It's certainly a valid choice because of RAW.
Beastial Soul and Totem Spirit (tiger) barbarians both develop some great abilities to jump.
This does not mean that a DM can't take a straightforward interpretation of an ambiguous text to refute the idea that an 8 str elf... could punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft.
Crusher:
DMs are always free to homebrew you are 100% correct.
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.
True. But hitting someone 5 ft up with crusher isn't homebrew. It's just a far fetched interpretation.
Here's an example of someone saying spaces not having a vertical component....
A creature's space in combat is defined in 5e as [short version] "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and "the area it needs to fight effectively"
[long version]
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.
From that space a creature can certainly reach to height and, while a gnome with a dagger cannot reach very far, a bugbear PC with a polearm could reach a lot further and a jumping, barbarian bugbear with a polearm could reach further still.
However, 5e combat spaces, as defined as areas, don't, in themselves, necessarily have height although difficult terrain and areas of sloping ground could be exceptions to this.
regarding your elf example, I’d say it would probably be an issue if the table if there was no communication. If the DM is arbitrarily nerfing the feature based on a completely unreasonable expectation that strength is required to use the feat.
we requiring monks to invest in strength to use the feat? No.
we require monks to have strength for stunning strike to work? No.