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, yes, of which I include myself, are free to make homebrew rules such as giving a Str requirements for elves specifically to use a feat like crusher. You could even ban crusher from being used by elves entirely if that suits your needs, or anyone with an 8 str, for that matter. When you homebrew the only limits are what your players will tolerate.
Go for it! Rewrite those rules. Just don't call your homebrew RAW on the rules forum here.
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.
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 require monks to access Ki. There's no reason to buff a feature to allow a medium-sized creature to knock a large-sized creature to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick,
... unless, of course, you want to. What you choose to do at your table is your choice.
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, yes, of which I include myself, are free to make homebrew rules such as giving a Str requirements for elves specifically to use a feat like crusher. You could even ban crusher from being used by elves entirely if that suits your needs, or anyone with an 8 str, for that matter. When you homebrew the only limits are what your players will tolerate.
Go for it! Rewrite those rules. Just don't call your homebrew RAW on the rules forum here.
I replied to you here on this and you failed to reply.
There is an interview linked earlier in this thread (in post #146 to be specific) with Crawford talking about the intent at the design level. Your interpretation is NOT RAI. Something being RAW does not make it RAI. If it did, there would never be a difference.
In the Dragon Talk, Jeremy Crawford cites exemples of Crusher effect, he never claim it is not intended to have a creature be moved vertically though. He specifically say ''the bludgeoning damage one can move you'' or ''hurled around'' and the feat ''move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space''
We have have him saying about the feat ''it is intended to as generous as the wording implies''
So without a Dev on record saying vertical is not intended to be a valid unocuppied space, it's safe to assume it is.
I posted earlier in the thread the same Dev regarding Open Hand where vertical movement was intended and its a forced movement even more restrictive than what Crusher does. (pushed away vs move)
As Gerg just said, you are taking the second half of that completely out of context. The second half was in the context of it applying to all blunt attacks. And since some such attacks can potentially direct force from any angle, there are situations where someone could be knocked relatively towards the person with the crusher feat. Earlier in this thread, I used the Catapult spell as such an example.
The clear intent is that it is not merely some secondary force triggered by the impact but an extension of the force of the impact, triggered directly, with flexibility as to what could be the triggering cause.
The intent is the moved to be caused by the bludgeoning damage no doubt. But the podcast doesn't says vertical movement is not intended if it's what you were saying
It doesn't say you can't, for instance, crush people through to the other side of prison bars either. All it says is that:
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.
In each and every case, a DM can consider a situation and rule on what may be physically possible.
So, you can't move people into an occupied space. Only unoccupied.
Yes, thankfully the ambiguous WotC text is clear about that bit. For characters with the crusher feat :
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? edit: Can a player just decide that they can't be knocked to a 5ft height by an opponent NPCs... or another character in PvP even if the opponent is one size smaller. In all cases no, not without their DM's consent. You're all only working with interpretations of the content of RAW.
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.
How is this not a more sensible and rules-based interpretation?
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 require monks to access Ki. There's no reason to buff a feature to allow a medium-sized creature to knock a large-sized creature to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick,
... unless, of course, you want to. What you choose to do at your table is your choice.
That line of logic is flawed. What a base class monk or subclass can do by spending ki has nothing to do with what a feat, that the player spent a resource to acquire in the first place, can do.
you often require casters to expend spell slots to make use of warcaster concentration advantage? No.
How about a barbarian spending an additional rage to make use of great weapon master? No.
it’s a flawed argument that does nothing but limit an already trash class that has little to no valuable interaction with any feats in the first place.
crusher already has size limitation of large applied to it. The argument is literally against what the feat explicitly allows the user to do. Frankly I don’t think any excuse so far to limit it in these 18 pages is even worth entertaining.
on a side note, what kind of value does constantly repeating different versions of “the GM can do different things!” actually bring to a rules forum?
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 require monks to access Ki. There's no reason to buff a feature to allow a medium-sized creature to knock a large-sized creature to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick,
... unless, of course, you want to. What you choose to do at your table is your choice.
That line of logic is flawed. What a base class monk or subclass can do by spending ki has nothing to do with what a feat, that the player spent a resource to acquire in the first place, can do.
you often require casters to expend spell slots to make use of warcaster concentration advantage? No.
How about a barbarian spending an additional rage to make use of great weapon master? No.
it’s a flawed argument that does nothing but limit an already trash class that has little to no valuable interaction with any feats in the first place.
crusher already has size limitation of large applied to it. The argument is literally against what the feat explicitly allows the user to do. Frankly I don’t think any excuse so far to limit it in these 18 pages is even worth entertaining.
on a side note, what kind of value does constantly repeating different versions of “the GM can do different things!” actually bring to a rules forum?
Crusher says: "You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, ..."
I doubt that any amount of practice would mean that "a 9 str elf... could punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft."
Physically it's an impossibility.
Your line of logic is flawed.
spell slots involve magic.
Barbarians' abilities are described with unambiguous texts and are justified via their primal instincts leading onward to primal paths.
Barbarians can swing a great weapon. Fantastic, but a great weapon is still a heck of a lot lighter than the ogre that a 9 str elf cannot logically knock to a height of 5 ft with a punch.
Crusher is great as is. It provides great facility for battlefield control.
But if you want to buff it so as to allow a 9 str elf to punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft, go for it. You do 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.
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 require monks to access Ki. There's no reason to buff a feature to allow a medium-sized creature to knock a large-sized creature to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick,
... unless, of course, you want to. What you choose to do at your table is your choice.
That line of logic is flawed. What a base class monk or subclass can do by spending ki has nothing to do with what a feat, that the player spent a resource to acquire in the first place, can do.
you often require casters to expend spell slots to make use of warcaster concentration advantage? No.
How about a barbarian spending an additional rage to make use of great weapon master? No.
it’s a flawed argument that does nothing but limit an already trash class that has little to no valuable interaction with any feats in the first place.
crusher already has size limitation of large applied to it. The argument is literally against what the feat explicitly allows the user to do. Frankly I don’t think any excuse so far to limit it in these 18 pages is even worth entertaining.
on a side note, what kind of value does constantly repeating different versions of “the GM can do different things!” actually bring to a rules forum?
Crusher says: "You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, ..."
I doubt that any amount of practice would mean that "a 9 str elf... could punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft."
Physically it's an impossibility.
Your line of logic is flawed.
spell slots involve magic.
Barbarians' abilities are described with unambiguous texts and are justified via their primal instincts leading onward to primal paths.
Barbarians can swing a great weapon. Fantastic, but a great weapon is still a heck of a lot lighter than the ogre that a 9 str elf cannot logically knock to a height of 5 ft with a punch.
Crusher is great as is. It provides great facility for battlefield control.
But if you want to buff it so as to allow a 9 str elf to punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft, go for it. You do you.
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, yes, of which I include myself, are free to make homebrew rules such as giving a Str requirements for elves specifically to use a feat like crusher. You could even ban crusher from being used by elves entirely if that suits your needs, or anyone with an 8 str, for that matter. When you homebrew the only limits are what your players will tolerate.
Go for it! Rewrite those rules. Just don't call your homebrew RAW on the rules forum here.
I replied to you here on this and you failed to reply.
That linked post contains no valid argument. It is only unfounded claims without supporting arguments nor text based evidential support. Repeating your unfounded claim over and over again isn't an argument and doesn't warrant a response. Other than just: "Prove it".
So, prove it.
Your argument is that the feat doesn't do what it clearly says it does. Or, something. So, prove it.
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.
How is this not a more sensible and rules-based interpretation?
Yes, "the DM must approve!!!11!!" is true, totally. But, the DM must even approve you get to have a character at his table. That isn't an argument one way or the other about what the rule actually does.
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.
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 require monks to access Ki. There's no reason to buff a feature to allow a medium-sized creature to knock a large-sized creature to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick,
... unless, of course, you want to. What you choose to do at your table is your choice.
That line of logic is flawed. What a base class monk or subclass can do by spending ki has nothing to do with what a feat, that the player spent a resource to acquire in the first place, can do.
you often require casters to expend spell slots to make use of warcaster concentration advantage? No.
How about a barbarian spending an additional rage to make use of great weapon master? No.
it’s a flawed argument that does nothing but limit an already trash class that has little to no valuable interaction with any feats in the first place.
crusher already has size limitation of large applied to it. The argument is literally against what the feat explicitly allows the user to do. Frankly I don’t think any excuse so far to limit it in these 18 pages is even worth entertaining.
on a side note, what kind of value does constantly repeating different versions of “the GM can do different things!” actually bring to a rules forum?
Crusher says: "You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, ..."
I doubt that any amount of practice would mean that "a 9 str elf... could punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft."
Physically it's an impossibility.
Your line of logic is flawed.
spell slots involve magic.
Barbarians' abilities are described with unambiguous texts and are justified via their primal instincts leading onward to primal paths.
Barbarians can swing a great weapon. Fantastic, but a great weapon is still a heck of a lot lighter than the ogre that a 9 str elf cannot logically knock to a height of 5 ft with a punch.
Crusher is great as is. It provides great facility for battlefield control.
But if you want to buff it so as to allow a 9 str elf to punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft, go for it. You do you.
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 to interpret this to say that "A 40 lb goblin with 1 strength can" knock a target "one size larger than you" up 5 ft with a slap or a stick, you go for it.
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, yes, of which I include myself, are free to make homebrew rules such as giving a Str requirements for elves specifically to use a feat like crusher. You could even ban crusher from being used by elves entirely if that suits your needs, or anyone with an 8 str, for that matter. When you homebrew the only limits are what your players will tolerate.
Go for it! Rewrite those rules. Just don't call your homebrew RAW on the rules forum here.
I replied to you here on this and you failed to reply.
There is an interview linked earlier in this thread (in post #146 to be specific) with Crawford talking about the intent at the design level. Your interpretation is NOT RAI. Something being RAW does not make it RAI. If it did, there would never be a difference.
In the Dragon Talk, Jeremy Crawford cites exemples of Crusher effect, he never claim it is not intended to have a creature be moved vertically though. He specifically say ''the bludgeoning damage one can move you'' or ''hurled around'' and the feat ''move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space''
We have have him saying about the feat ''it is intended to as generous as the wording implies''
So without a Dev on record saying vertical is not intended to be a valid unocuppied space, it's safe to assume it is.
I posted earlier in the thread the same Dev regarding Open Hand where vertical movement was intended and its a forced movement even more restrictive than what Crusher does. (pushed away vs move)
As Gerg just said, you are taking the second half of that completely out of context. The second half was in the context of it applying to all blunt attacks. And since some such attacks can potentially direct force from any angle, there are situations where someone could be knocked relatively towards the person with the crusher feat. Earlier in this thread, I used the Catapult spell as such an example.
The clear intent is that it is not merely some secondary force triggered by the impact but an extension of the force of the impact, triggered directly, with flexibility as to what could be the triggering cause.
The intent is the moved to be caused by the bludgeoning damage no doubt. But the podcast doesn't says vertical movement is not intended if it's what you were saying
It doesn't say you can't, for instance, crush people through to the other side of prison bars either. All it says is that:
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.
In each and every case, a DM can consider a situation and rule on what may be physically possible.
So, you can't move people into an occupied space. Only unoccupied.
Yes, thankfully the ambiguous WotC text is clear about that bit. For characters with the crusher feat :
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? edit: Can a player just decide that they can't be knocked to a 5ft height by an opponent NPCs... or another character in PvP even if the opponent is one size smaller. In all cases no, not without their DM's consent. You're all only working with interpretations of the content of RAW.
That linked post contains no valid argument. It is only unfounded claims without supporting arguments nor text based evidential support. Repeating your unfounded claim over and over again isn't an argument and doesn't warrant a response. Other than just: "Prove it".
So, prove it.
Your argument is that the feat doesn't do what it clearly says it does. Or, something. So, prove it.
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.
How isthis not a more sensible and rules-based interpretation?
Yes, "the DM must approve!!!11!!" is true, totally. But, the DM must even approve you get to have a character at his table. That isn't an argument one way or the other about what the rule actually does.
My "claim" is that "this ... [is] a more sensible and rules-based interpretation".
If you want to interpret that the use of Crusher can enable, for instance, a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, you go for it.
Yes, "the DM must approve!!!11!!" is true, totally. But, the DM must even approve you get to have a character at his table. That isn't an argument one way or the other about what the rule actually does.
There is no debate about what the rule actually says (RAW). There is, however, a debate as to how the rule is intended to apply (RAI). Continuing to say otherwise does not change that. Repeating 'But the RAW says' does not change that, either.
Keep in mind (and repeating this too), there are circumstances in which I would allow it to knock the target 5' into the air and circumstances in which I would not allow that. Based on that Crawford interview, that would seem to be RAI.
The person I was replying to is making the argument against it being RAW. He is literally arguing that somehow Crusher has a strength requirement or something.
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.
Yes, "the DM must approve!!!11!!" is true, totally. But, the DM must even approve you get to have a character at his table. That isn't an argument one way or the other about what the rule actually does.
There is no debate about what the rule actually says (RAW). There is, however, a debate as to how the rule is intended to apply (RAI). Continuing to say otherwise does not change that. Repeating 'But the RAW says' does not change that, either.
Keep in mind (and repeating this too), there are circumstances in which I would allow it to knock the target 5' into the air and circumstances in which I would not allow that. Based on that Crawford interview, that would seem to be RAI.
The person I was replying to is making the argument against it being RAW. He is literally arguing that somehow Crusher has a strength requirement or something.
Hello, I'm in the room.
I was "literally arguing" that "this ... [is] a more sensible and rules-based interpretation" for Crusher than saying, for instance, that it can enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
Yes, "the DM must approve!!!11!!" is true, totally. But, the DM must even approve you get to have a character at his table. That isn't an argument one way or the other about what the rule actually does.
There is no debate about what the rule actually says (RAW). There is, however, a debate as to how the rule is intended to apply (RAI). Continuing to say otherwise does not change that. Repeating 'But the RAW says' does not change that, either.
Keep in mind (and repeating this too), there are circumstances in which I would allow it to knock the target 5' into the air and circumstances in which I would not allow that. Based on that Crawford interview, that would seem to be RAI.
The person I was replying to is making the argument against it being RAW. He is literally arguing that somehow Crusher has a strength requirement or something.
Hello, I'm in the room.
I was "literally arguing" that "this ... [is] a more sensible and rules-based interpretation" for Crusher than saying, for instance, that it can enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
Crusher doesn't have a stat or racial requirement my dude.
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.
Yes, "the DM must approve!!!11!!" is true, totally. But, the DM must even approve you get to have a character at his table. That isn't an argument one way or the other about what the rule actually does.
There is no debate about what the rule actually says (RAW). There is, however, a debate as to how the rule is intended to apply (RAI). Continuing to say otherwise does not change that. Repeating 'But the RAW says' does not change that, either.
Keep in mind (and repeating this too), there are circumstances in which I would allow it to knock the target 5' into the air and circumstances in which I would not allow that. Based on that Crawford interview, that would seem to be RAI.
The person I was replying to is making the argument against it being RAW. He is literally arguing that somehow Crusher has a strength requirement or something.
Hello, I'm in the room.
I was "literally arguing" that "this ... [is] a more sensible and rules-based interpretation" for Crusher than saying, for instance, that it can enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
Crusher doesn't have a stat or racial requirement my dude.
My dude, Crusher doesn't say you can knock an opponent to a height of 5ft. That's interpretation.
If you want to interpret Crusher as saying, for instance, that it can enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, go for it.
Yes, "the DM must approve!!!11!!" is true, totally. But, the DM must even approve you get to have a character at his table. That isn't an argument one way or the other about what the rule actually does.
There is no debate about what the rule actually says (RAW). There is, however, a debate as to how the rule is intended to apply (RAI). Continuing to say otherwise does not change that. Repeating 'But the RAW says' does not change that, either.
Keep in mind (and repeating this too), there are circumstances in which I would allow it to knock the target 5' into the air and circumstances in which I would not allow that. Based on that Crawford interview, that would seem to be RAI.
The person I was replying to is making the argument against it being RAW. He is literally arguing that somehow Crusher has a strength requirement or something.
Hello, I'm in the room.
I was "literally arguing" that "this ... [is] a more sensible and rules-based interpretation" for Crusher than saying, for instance, that it can enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
Crusher doesn't have a stat or racial requirement my dude.
My dude, Crusher doesn't say you can knock an opponent to a height of 5ft. That's interpretation.
If you want to interpret Crusher as saying, for instance, that it can enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, go for it.
Please stop trying to tell people or otherwise imply that the Crusher feat has a racial or stat requirement. It does not.
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.
Yes, "the DM must approve!!!11!!" is true, totally. But, the DM must even approve you get to have a character at his table. That isn't an argument one way or the other about what the rule actually does.
There is no debate about what the rule actually says (RAW). There is, however, a debate as to how the rule is intended to apply (RAI). Continuing to say otherwise does not change that. Repeating 'But the RAW says' does not change that, either.
Keep in mind (and repeating this too), there are circumstances in which I would allow it to knock the target 5' into the air and circumstances in which I would not allow that. Based on that Crawford interview, that would seem to be RAI.
The person I was replying to is making the argument against it being RAW. He is literally arguing that somehow Crusher has a strength requirement or something.
Hello, I'm in the room.
I was "literally arguing" that "this ... [is] a more sensible and rules-based interpretation" for Crusher than saying, for instance, that it can enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
Crusher doesn't have a stat or racial requirement my dude.
My dude, Crusher doesn't say you can knock an opponent to a height of 5ft. That's interpretation.
If you want to interpret Crusher as saying, for instance, that it can enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, go for it.
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.
This is all crusher says.
If an interpretation is made on what this ambiguous description says, then I will say what I like in reference to that interpretation.
You remain at liberty not to factor in issues like strength or body type (for instance whether a character/creature is long and gangly or short and stocky). It still remains fine for me to mention facts that can fairly be applied to interpretation.
Please stop trying to tell people or otherwise imply that the Crusher feat has a racial or stat requirement. It does not.
Just because someone uses race names in an example does not mean they are saying there is a race requirement. Or stat requirement.
First of all, the in game definition of 'requirement' in this context would be needing to meet the requirements to get the feat at all.
There are clearly situational limits on its use, even RAW. The target must be no more than one size class larger than you. This means that a halfling cannot move a horse with it. At all. Not even away from the halfling. Does that mean to you that the feat has a racial requirement?
Again, RAI is that the effect relates to the actual blow. This means it is reasonable for a DM to place situational limits on its use based on who is being hit, what with and from what direction. That is completely consistent with RAI. Working out formal details of that would indeed be homebrew, but just discussing it conceptually in terms of RAI? Fair game here. Still a Rules discussion.
Please stop trying to tell people or otherwise imply that the Crusher feat has a racial or stat requirement. It does not.
Just because someone uses race names in an example does not mean they are saying there is a race requirement. Or stat requirement.
First of all, the in game definition of 'requirement' in this context would be needing to meet the requirements to get the feat at all.
There are clearly situational limits on its use, even RAW. The target must be no more than one size class larger than you. This means that a halfling cannot move a horse with it. At all. Not even away from the halfling. Does that mean to you that the feat has a racial requirement?
Again, RAI is that the effect relates to the actual blow. This means it is reasonable for a DM to place situational limits on its use based on who is being hit, what with and from what direction. That is completely consistent with RAI. Working out formal details of that would indeed be homebrew, but just discussing it conceptually in terms of RAI? Fair game here. Still a Rules discussion.
The limits are already built into the feat.
That there are limits included was part of my point, as bolded. That there are other limits also intended is derived from that discussion with Crawford.
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.
This gives us three central bits of information: action: "you can move it" distance: "5 feet" destination: "to an unoccupied space".
Please stop trying to tell people or otherwise imply that the Crusher feat has a racial or stat requirement. It does not.
Just because someone uses race names in an example does not mean they are saying there is a race requirement. Or stat requirement.
First of all, the in game definition of 'requirement' in this context would be needing to meet the requirements to get the feat at all.
There are clearly situational limits on its use, even RAW. The target must be no more than one size class larger than you. This means that a halfling cannot move a horse with it. At all. Not even away from the halfling. Does that mean to you that the feat has a racial requirement?
Again, RAI is that the effect relates to the actual blow. This means it is reasonable for a DM to place situational limits on its use based on who is being hit, what with and from what direction. That is completely consistent with RAI. Working out formal details of that would indeed be homebrew, but just discussing it conceptually in terms of RAI? Fair game here. Still a Rules discussion.
The limits are already built into the feat.
That there are limits included was part of my point, as bolded. That there are other limits also intended is derived from that discussion with Crawford.
The limits included in the feat... are the limits of the feat. Additional limits you would like to add is called homebrewing. There is no stat requirement for crusher. There is no race requirement for crusher. Additional "situational limits" added is also homebrew. facing, called targets, and the angle of swing of a melee weapon are not part of the 5e rule toolkit, you are free to homebrew your own rules for this and then apply them to the crusher feat. However, they're certainly not RAI since they don't exist.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I may have missed it since the thread is pretty long at this point, but has anyone cited a developer as saying that vertical wasn't intended for Crusher or any other similar feat or rule that doesn't mention it RAW? If not, then there is no RAI argument against it. You need to have something that shows a developer's intent in order to reasonably say something is Rules As Intended.
I may have missed it since the thread is pretty long at this point, but has anyone cited a developer as saying that vertical wasn't intended for Crusher or any other similar feat or rule that doesn't mention it RAW? If not, then there is no RAI argument against it. You need to have something that shows a developer's intent in order to reasonably say something is Rules As Intended.
It's the opposite: we already had a Crawford tweet in this thread declaring that forced movement intentionally covers vertical movement by default. It's right here. The context is about the Open Hand subclass's Open Hand Technique ability being used to push, and JC responds that of course you can push vertically, provided you satisfy the rule's demand that the push be away. Crusher does not say away (or any other direction).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Don't delete the context.
DMs, yes, of which I include myself, are free to make homebrew rules such as giving a Str requirements for elves specifically to use a feat like crusher. You could even ban crusher from being used by elves entirely if that suits your needs, or anyone with an 8 str, for that matter. When you homebrew the only limits are what your players will tolerate.
Go for it! Rewrite those rules. Just don't call your homebrew RAW on the rules forum here.
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.
We require monks to access Ki.
There's no reason to buff a feature to allow a medium-sized creature to knock a large-sized creature to a 5 ft height with a slap or a stick,
... unless, of course, you want to.
What you choose to do at your table is your choice.
I replied to you here on this and you failed to reply.
I believe in second chances.
Yes, thankfully the ambiguous WotC text is clear about that bit.
For characters with the crusher feat :
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?
edit: Can a player just decide that they can't be knocked to a 5ft height by an opponent NPCs... or another character in PvP even if the opponent is one size smaller.
In all cases no, not without their DM's consent. You're all only working with interpretations of the content of RAW.
How is this not a more sensible and rules-based interpretation?
That line of logic is flawed. What a base class monk or subclass can do by spending ki has nothing to do with what a feat, that the player spent a resource to acquire in the first place, can do.
you often require casters to expend spell slots to make use of warcaster concentration advantage? No.
How about a barbarian spending an additional rage to make use of great weapon master? No.
it’s a flawed argument that does nothing but limit an already trash class that has little to no valuable interaction with any feats in the first place.
crusher already has size limitation of large applied to it. The argument is literally against what the feat explicitly allows the user to do. Frankly I don’t think any excuse so far to limit it in these 18 pages is even worth entertaining.
on a side note, what kind of value does constantly repeating different versions of “the GM can do different things!” actually bring to a rules forum?
Crusher says: "You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, ..."
I doubt that any amount of practice would mean that "a 9 str elf... could punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft."
Physically it's an impossibility.
Your line of logic is flawed.
spell slots involve magic.
Barbarians' abilities are described with unambiguous texts and are justified via their primal instincts leading onward to primal paths.
Barbarians can swing a great weapon. Fantastic, but a great weapon is still a heck of a lot lighter than the ogre that a 9 str elf cannot logically knock to a height of 5 ft with a punch.
Crusher is great as is. It provides great facility for battlefield control.
But if you want to buff it so as to allow a 9 str elf to punch an ogre to a height of 5 ft, go for it. You do you.
It’s not a buff. It’s what the feature does. A 40 lb goblin with 1 strength can do it. The stats don’t matter.
That linked post contains no valid argument. It is only unfounded claims without supporting arguments nor text based evidential support. Repeating your unfounded claim over and over again isn't an argument and doesn't warrant a response. Other than just: "Prove it".
So, prove it.
Your argument is that the feat doesn't do what it clearly says it does. Or, something. So, prove it.
Yes, "the DM must approve!!!11!!" is true, totally. But, the DM must even approve you get to have a character at his table. That isn't an argument one way or the other about what the rule actually does.
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 do you.
Crusher
If you want to interpret this to say that "A 40 lb goblin with 1 strength can" knock a target "one size larger than you" up 5 ft with a slap or a stick, you go for it.
My "claim" is that "this ... [is] a more sensible and rules-based interpretation".
If you want to interpret that the use of Crusher can enable, for instance, a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, you go for it.
You do you.
The person I was replying to is making the argument against it being RAW. He is literally arguing that somehow Crusher has a strength requirement or something.
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.
Hello, I'm in the room.
I was "literally arguing" that "this ... [is] a more sensible and rules-based interpretation" for Crusher than saying, for instance, that it can enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
Crusher doesn't have a stat or racial requirement my dude.
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.
My dude, Crusher doesn't say you can knock an opponent to a height of 5ft. That's interpretation.
If you want to interpret Crusher as saying, for instance, that it can enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick, go for it.
You do you.
Please stop trying to tell people or otherwise imply that the Crusher feat has a racial or stat requirement. It does not.
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.
No -- and that's not what I'm doing.
Crusher:
This is all crusher says.
If an interpretation is made on what this ambiguous description says, then I will say what I like in reference to that interpretation.
You remain at liberty not to factor in issues like strength or body type (for instance whether a character/creature is long and gangly or short and stocky). It still remains fine for me to mention facts that can fairly be applied to interpretation.
You do you.
The limits are already built into the feat.
To be specific the crusher feat tells us that:
This gives us three central bits of information:
action: "you can move it"
distance: "5 feet"
destination: "to an unoccupied space".
After that, it's down to interpretation.
Mainly the DMs.
The limits included in the feat... are the limits of the feat. Additional limits you would like to add is called homebrewing. There is no stat requirement for crusher. There is no race requirement for crusher. Additional "situational limits" added is also homebrew. facing, called targets, and the angle of swing of a melee weapon are not part of the 5e rule toolkit, you are free to homebrew your own rules for this and then apply them to the crusher feat. However, they're certainly not RAI since they don't exist.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I may have missed it since the thread is pretty long at this point, but has anyone cited a developer as saying that vertical wasn't intended for Crusher or any other similar feat or rule that doesn't mention it RAW? If not, then there is no RAI argument against it. You need to have something that shows a developer's intent in order to reasonably say something is Rules As Intended.
It's the opposite: we already had a Crawford tweet in this thread declaring that forced movement intentionally covers vertical movement by default. It's right here. The context is about the Open Hand subclass's Open Hand Technique ability being used to push, and JC responds that of course you can push vertically, provided you satisfy the rule's demand that the push be away. Crusher does not say away (or any other direction).