I just think that the idea would be ridiculous in any scenario that made attempts at physical realism.
And there's the problem. No where in the rules does it state 5E makes any attempt at physical realism. The designers are tabletop geeks, not rocket scientists. Each character moves rapidly during its turn, but then stands there while the other characters do thier thing (except possibly taking 1 reaction). By the rules on falling stated here, many sports are impossible since the ball would immediately & instantly fall to the ground. Forget home runs, you'll never get the baseball past the pitcher! There are so many 5E rules that make no sense in the real world, because the designers designed the game for fun, not for realism. So if you're looking for a high level of realism, I humbly suggest that D&D is not the game for you. It is not designed to scratch that itch.
And your counter-example fails, since ranged and thrown weapons do not fall directly to the ground the second they leave the bow or hand and long jumps have actual jumping distances rather than the jumper landing immediately getting nowhere.
Falling distance is actually the approximate distance one falls in normal gravity in 6 seconds. It is treated as instantaneous the same way any other movement is, but would still trigger an attack of opportunity if the faller fell close enough past some other creature.
And that baseball does not seem to fall only because (a) it is thrown slightly up to compensate for gravity and (b) it is less than one second in flight. Remember it does still either hit the ground quickly or get hit by the bat slightly quicker.
You might have skipped the part where I stated "By the rules on falling stated here". No where did I say those rules were actually RAW. Per this thread, falling happens not just instantly, but the fall itself happens instantly. The instant the Crusher effect ends, the target instantly falls to the ground, no time for a Action or Bonus Action. So the instant the Swing Bat action ends, the baseball immediately plummets to the earth, per the rules as stated in this thread, no time to move under the ball or perform a Catch action. Except, as you noted, that's not how physics actually works. Inertia / momentum is a thing. Players in the outfield clearly have plenty of time to run across the field and casually catch the ball. The batter runs all the way to first base, if he's lucky. Which, by the way, is 90' away from home. Apparently every MLB player is a Monk?
Jumping is wierd because you can have a jump distance greater than your remaining movement. RAW, what happens when a character with 5' of movement remaining uses a jump of 10'? Do they jump 5' & then hang in midair until thier next turn? Do they go the whole 10' & land (maybe losing 5' of movement from thier next turn)? Jump 5' & land (but why, I can jump 10')?
Also, track the time in a MLB game from when the bat hits the ball to when a home run (or even almost home run) is caught or hits the ground. That's considerably longer than 1 second. Might even be longer than 6 seconds under the best conditions, but I couldn't find any info on the net to confirm that.
If there were rules for baseball in D&D 5E, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But there aren't, and the abstracted rules for humanoid creatures are not universally applicable to every conceivable interaction.
As for jumping, your movement is just how far you can move in a given round. Just because a character can jump X feet doesn't mean they have to. You jump as far as you can move unless you use a Dash to extend your movement. Nobody hangs in the air. No need to pretend to be obtuse about this.
the abstracted rules for humanoid creatures are not universally applicable to every conceivable interaction.
What rule states that humanoid creatures fall differently that non-humanoid creatures, or non-creatures? Without such a rule, why would the falling rules not apply equally to everything, barring a specific rule to the contrary?
As far as jumping, if you don't hang in the air. do you fall to the ground or keeping moving the remaining distance of your jump?
I think the jump to conclusions about movement being limited to horizontal doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If you’re going to say virtual movement is off limits because the feat doesn’t specify a direction, then why are you saying horizontal works?
you could just as easily say creatures can’t be moved horizontally by applying the same flawed logic.
if there is no specified limitations on direction, that means all directions are valid choices.
there are multiple features in tasha’s that force movement and are specified to be limited to a horizontal direction. The crusher feat was written broadly to allow more Choice in direction as well as the types of attacks that can be used with it.
I think the jump to conclusions about movement being limited to horizontal doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If you’re going to say virtual movement is off limits because the feat doesn’t specify a direction, then why are you saying horizontal works?
you could just as easily say creatures can’t be moved horizontally by applying the same flawed logic.
if there is no specified limitations on direction, that means all directions are valid choices.
there are multiple features in tasha’s that force movement and are specified to be limited to a horizontal direction. The crusher feat was written broadly to allow more Shiite in direction as well as the types of attacks that can be used with it.
Not sure who you're replying to. if there is no specified limitation on direction, that means check with your DM.
If you think the conclusions reached about movement being limited to horizontal don’t hold up to scrutiny, feel free to indicate any actual flaws you see in reasonings presented as related to RAW.
the abstracted rules for humanoid creatures are not universally applicable to every conceivable interaction.
What rule states that humanoid creatures fall differently that non-humanoid creatures, or non-creatures? Without such a rule, why would the falling rules not apply equally to everything, barring a specific rule to the contrary?
As far as jumping, if you don't hang in the air. do you fall to the ground or keeping moving the remaining distance of your jump?
This is the extent of rules for falling in the PHB. Note that it doesn't specify who or what it applies to, only that falling, "is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer." Not everything is an adventurer. Beyond that, it's ambiguous. We don't have a rate of falling, and we don't know if it affects just adventurers or other things, too. In other words, this is a general guideline for the DM to adjudicate on the fly.
Here are some optional rules expansions for falling, found in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Note they only explicitly apply to "you" and "creatures" which may or may not be capable of flight. Objects are not covered, though if a DM wished to apply these rules to an object I wouldn't begrudge them. Whether I'd do that might depend on the situation. I don't think I'd allow for a magic item, as resistant to damage as they are, to just shatter from a massive fall. Maybe some, but not all. Certainly not a "story item" like the Sunsword from Curse of Strahd.
And lastly, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything has additional rules for creatures falling into water and falling onto a creature. Again, no mention of non-creatures (i.e. objects), for a variety of reasons.
With regards to jumping, you can only jump as far as your remaining movement and one of several things will happen:
You land on your feet, on solid ground.
You remain "in the air" because you've grabbed hold of a ledge and are left hanging.
You grapple a flying creature, reducing its speed to 0, and possibly descend to the ground.
You fall because you've leapt off a ledge and might be in freefall if the height is greater than 500 feet.
I might have missed a scenario or two, but this isn't difficult. Please, read up on the rules again.
###
The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't. Likewise, they tell you how something behaves, not how it doesn't. For example, the area of a grease isn't flammable not because the rules say it isn't, but because the rules don't say that it is flammable. Similarly, scorching ray cannot ignite objects and start fires because the spell description doesn't say that it can.
To apply this general principle to falling, the rules that only specifically mention creatures only apply to creatures. They do not apply to objects, and for a variety of reasons. When you're DM, you can impose a different interpretation. Just be aware that this interpretation won't be RAW.
... The instant the Crusher effect ends, the target instantly falls to the ground, no time for a Action or Bonus Action. .
This relies on the interpretation that crusher is able to move a potentially one size larger creature to a height but, otherwise, yes. The action happens on the attackers initiative on their turn in the initiative sequence.
... So the instant the Swing Bat action ends, the baseball immediately plummets to the earth, per the rules as stated in this thread, no time to move under the ball or perform a Catch action. ...
For a swing bat action to be effective, it would need to be enabled as a readied reaction. To be effective the Swing Bat action has to be timed with the arrival of the ball in the bat's effective range. As the action would have been readied to be used in response to another creature's action, the only control you would have on a baseball in 5e is whether you hit it or not.
If you want to try to convince your DM that this allows you to knock an opponent potentially one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft, go ahead. I just think that the idea would be ridiculous in any scenario that made attempts at physical realism. If you're working towards a cartoon or video game type scenario, perhaps anything goes.
That's what breaks the immersion for you? Not the whole magic, gods, undeads, fiends, devils, demons, dragons etc? But some dude smacking that bugbear 5ft into the air?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nugz - Kobold Level 4 Bloodhunter/Order of the Mutant - Out there looking for snacks and evil monsters.
Ultrix Schwarzdorn - Human Level 6 Artificer/Armorer - Retired and works in his new shop.
Quercus Espenkiel - Gnome Level 9 Wizard/Order of Scribes - Turned into a book and sits on a shelf.
Artin - Fairy Level 4 Sorcerer/Wild Magic - Busy with annoying the townsfolk. Again.
Jabor - Fire Genasi - Level 4 Wizard/School of Evocation - The First Flame, The Last Chaos. Probably in jail, again.
If you want to try to convince your DM that this allows you to knock an opponent potentially one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft, go ahead. I just think that the idea would be ridiculous in any scenario that made attempts at physical realism. If you're working towards a cartoon or video game type scenario, perhaps anything goes.
That's what breaks the immersion for you? Not the whole magic, gods, undeads, fiends, devils, demons, dragons etc? But some dude smacking that bugbear 5ft into the air?
In a world where magic empowers magical things, divinities empower divine things and fiends empower fiendish things..., it would change my immersion to something I would not personally choose.
What is it that empowers "you to knock an opponent potentially one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft"?
I'd certainly consider the premise you mentioned to be even more questionable if the bugbear was under the effects of an enlarge spell or similar so as to bring it from being medium-sized and into the large size category.
I might rule that a creature could be moved to a height on a critical or in a condition like a high damage roll but, otherwise, I'd certainly question the physical possibilities.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear, but I have a feeling you aren't paying attention. The quoted exchange on Open Hand Technique has nothing to do with how Crusher works. The former allows for pushing 15 feet away, and Crawford rightly says that straight up vertically would work if the target were directly above. That's not the case here; especially when the feat only allows for moving the target 5 feet into an unoccupied space. Contrary to whatever colloquial understanding you might have, these are not the same.
The reference to Open Hand Q&A is important as it destroy all your incorrect space notion argument. The Dev says a creature can be above you and you can push it vertically. All this talk means there is unoccupied space vertically and not just 2D, contrary to what you're arguing.
The adventure design i discuss is also important. The balcony i made reference is clear indication that there are vertical unoccupied space above the floor one on a 2D map.
You are right that the rules provides no guidelines for handling 3D. It's a concept we understand from reality even if the rules makes no menion of it. Just like humans in D&D reproduce by fornicating and often urinate and defecate even if the rules don't say a word about it.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear, but I have a feeling you aren't paying attention. The quoted exchange on Open Hand Technique has nothing to do with how Crusher works. The former allows for pushing 15 feet away, and Crawford rightly says that straight up vertically would work if the target were directly above. That's not the case here; especially when the feat only allows for moving the target 5 feet into an unoccupied space. Contrary to whatever colloquial understanding you might have, these are not the same.
The reference to Open Hand Q&A is important as it destroy all your incorrect space notion argument. The Dev says a creature can be above you and you can push it vertically. All this talk means there is unoccupied space vertically and not just 2D, contrary to what you're arguing.
The adventure design i discuss is also important. The balcony i made reference is clear indication that there are vertical unoccupied space above the floor one on a 2D map.
You are right that the rules provides no guidelines for handling 3D. It's a concept we understand from reality even if the rules makes no menion of it. Just like humans in D&D reproduce by fornicating and often urinate and defecate even if the rules don't say a word about it.
All this does is to give an example of vertical movement as an implication of a Ki empowered action.
@Vo1kain Can the knock back granted by open hands flurry of blows be used to push the target vertically?
@JeremyECrawfordPushing someone away requires the whole move to be away from you. A diagonal push works. Vertical doesn't.
@ShadowRadiance vertical is away but most dnd games kinda ignore it for simplicity. I'd rule sure you can push up if you're prone
@JeremyECrawford Vertical is only away if the creature is on top of you.
@JeremyECrawford If your target is above you, however, you can push them vertically. The point is this: you must push away.
A character movement that involves jumping is another way to get to a height.
None of this mentions or relates to a combat definition of space.
All this does is to give an example of vertical movement as an implication of a Ki empowered action.
A character movement that involves jumping is another way to get to a height.
None of this mentions or relates to a combat definition of space.
It relates as both are forced movement, wether the target is pushed or moved 5 feet. The point is not how it's done, the point is that it can be done and that such space do exist.
All this does is to give an example of vertical movement as an implication of a Ki empowered action.
A character movement that involves jumping is another way to get to a height.
None of this mentions or relates to a combat definition of space.
It relates as both are forced movement, wether the target is pushed or moved 5 feet. The point is not how it's done, the point is that it can be done and that such space do exist.
Open Hand Technique allows for pushing a creature away. Space isn't mentioned because vertical spaces don't exist in the same manner that horizontal spaces do. And there's no requirement that they must be pushes back through unoccupied spaces, though that should be assumed, because their movement can be prematurely stopped by an obstacle. It's also a supernatural effect because, why not expressly magical, is powered by the expenditure of Ki. Now, can a Way of the Open Hand monk strike and move a target vertically? Yes, hypothetically, if the target were directly overtop and within reach. But how do you know?
Again, for the umpteenth time, spaces lack a vertical dimension. They merely abstractly exist at whatever height they're placed at. And without that concrete definition, that "space" doesn't exist on a mechanical level. The clear intent, based on the straightest reading of RAW allowable, is a sling bullet to the head of an ogre makes them stumble 5 feet into an unoccupied space. At least, that's how a DM is most likely to narrate it. If you want to turn it into a Stephen Chow movie, talk to your DM.
Because, and again, here's the thing: what's the point? Okay, let's say you can knock them up or diagonally. They'll fall 5 feet, land on their feet, and take zero fall damage. You can't knock them up into a hazard. Not even a persistent AoE spell or other effect like sickening radiance will affect it because they aren't entering of their own power during their turn, nor are they starting their turn there unless something makes them stay within that area like solid ground. Which means you're basically shoving someone up at a 45 degree angle to land on a ledge that's in the AoE of something.
Every conceivable scenario that would require being able to move someone diagonally like this is solely designed with trying to game the system. Just like trying weaponize the monk's Slow Fall. Neither are RAW. Take your shenanigans out of this RAW forum and to your DM.
Okay, let's say you can knock them up or diagonally. They'll fall 5 feet, land on their feet, and take zero fall damage. You can't knock them up into a hazard. Not even a persistent AoE spell or other effect like sickening radiance will affect it because they aren't entering of their own power during their turn, nor are they starting their turn there unless something makes them stay within that area like solid ground. Which means you're basically shoving someone up at a 45 degree angle to land on a ledge that's in the AoE of something.
Every conceivable scenario that would require being able to move someone diagonally like this is solely designed with trying to game the system. Just like trying weaponize the monk's Slow Fall. Neither are RAW. Take your shenanigans out of this RAW forum and to your DM.
First please don't order people to go take their arguments outta here as this is a Rule forum and the fact people disagree with you on RAW is not a reason to order them around like that.
Second yes it would be moved 5 feet, fall and take no damage.
Third, moving a creature into a AoE will deal damage unless the AoE specifically require willing movement. Telekinetic definitly trigger damage from Sickening Radiance.
All this does is to give an example of vertical movement as an implication of a Ki empowered action.
A character movement that involves jumping is another way to get to a height.
None of this mentions or relates to a combat definition of space.
It relates as both are forced movement, wether the target is pushed or moved 5 feet. The point is not how it's done, the point is that it can be done and that such space do exist.
Open Hand Technique allows for pushing a creature away. Space isn't mentioned because vertical spaces don't exist in the same manner that horizontal spaces do. And there's no requirement that they must be pushes back through unoccupied spaces, though that should be assumed, because their movement can be prematurely stopped by an obstacle. It's also a supernatural effect because, why not expressly magical, is powered by the expenditure of Ki. Now, can a Way of the Open Hand monk strike and move a target vertically? Yes, hypothetically, if the target were directly overtop and within reach. But how do you know?
Again, for the umpteenth time, spaces lack a vertical dimension. They merely abstractly exist at whatever height they're placed at. And without that concrete definition, that "space" doesn't exist on a mechanical level. The clear intent, based on the straightest reading of RAW allowable, is a sling bullet to the head of an ogre makes them stumble 5 feet into an unoccupied space. At least, that's how a DM is most likely to narrate it. If you want to turn it into a Stephen Chow movie, talk to your DM.
Because, and again, here's the thing: what's the point? Okay, let's say you can knock them up or diagonally. They'll fall 5 feet, land on their feet, and take zero fall damage. You can't knock them up into a hazard. Not even a persistent AoE spell or other effect like sickening radiance will affect it because they aren't entering of their own power during their turn, nor are they starting their turn there unless something makes them stay within that area like solid ground. Which means you're basically shoving someone up at a 45 degree angle to land on a ledge that's in the AoE of something.
Every conceivable scenario that would require being able to move someone diagonally like this is solely designed with trying to game the system. Just like trying weaponize the monk's Slow Fall. Neither are RAW. Take your shenanigans out of this RAW forum and to your DM.
The point is that your interpretation creates a bunch of stupid interactions that obviously don't exist and are not intended it seems. You seemingly state to say spaces have no verticality yet that would imply something could pass over something else at 200 ft vertically but as long as it was 5ft horizontally you could attack it which is obviously wrong.
You state that is not what your intent is but its obvious that's what your point creates.
If your point is "the DM decides vertical space" then that is RAW and would obviously be up to a DM if they allow crusher to move a character up 5ft in the air and would be a better answer than "there is no vertical space" as that is obviously wrong.
As for what is the point...the point is that if we follow the wrong train of thought your "ruling" creates it causes some serious issues with 3D combat.
Okay, let's say you can knock them up or diagonally. They'll fall 5 feet, land on their feet, and take zero fall damage. You can't knock them up into a hazard. Not even a persistent AoE spell or other effect like sickening radiance will affect it because they aren't entering of their own power during their turn, nor are they starting their turn there unless something makes them stay within that area like solid ground. Which means you're basically shoving someone up at a 45 degree angle to land on a ledge that's in the AoE of something.
Every conceivable scenario that would require being able to move someone diagonally like this is solely designed with trying to game the system. Just like trying weaponize the monk's Slow Fall. Neither are RAW. Take your shenanigans out of this RAW forum and to your DM.
First please don't order people to go take their arguments outta here as this is a Rule forum and the fact people disagree with you on RAW is not a reason to order them around like that.
Second yes it would be moved 5 feet, fall and take no damage.
Third, moving a creature into a AoE will deal damage unless the AoE specifically require willing movement. Telekinetic definitly trigger damage from Sickening Radiance.
Plaguescarred seems to me to be right on these points.
If a spell says that creatures will take damage when entering their AoEs, then they will take damage when entering their AoEs.
(Area is still typically divided into squares or hexs. Height components can well be quantified with measurements. edit, having said that, the entry for gelatinous cube says "Ooze Cube. The cube takes up its entire space" and, while a mention of 5e space may still refer to area, this specific monster is a cube).
All this does is to give an example of vertical movement as an implication of a Ki empowered action.
A character movement that involves jumping is another way to get to a height.
None of this mentions or relates to a combat definition of space.
It relates as both are forced movement, wether the target is pushed or moved 5 feet. The point is not how it's done, the point is that it can be done and that such space do exist.
That's for sure. If a movement is adjudicated to happen then that movement will happen and the stated and/or judged consequences of that movement will take effect.
All this does is to give an example of vertical movement as an implication of a Ki empowered action.
A character movement that involves jumping is another way to get to a height.
None of this mentions or relates to a combat definition of space.
It relates as both are forced movement, wether the target is pushed or moved 5 feet. The point is not how it's done, the point is that it can be done and that such space do exist.
Open Hand Technique allows for pushing a creature away. Space isn't mentioned because vertical spaces don't exist in the same manner that horizontal spaces do. And there's no requirement that they must be pushes back through unoccupied spaces, though that should be assumed, because their movement can be prematurely stopped by an obstacle. It's also a supernatural effect because, why not expressly magical, is powered by the expenditure of Ki. Now, can a Way of the Open Hand monk strike and move a target vertically? Yes, hypothetically, if the target were directly overtop and within reach. But how do you know?
Again, for the umpteenth time, spaces lack a vertical dimension. They merely abstractly exist at whatever height they're placed at. And without that concrete definition, that "space" doesn't exist on a mechanical level. The clear intent, based on the straightest reading of RAW allowable, is a sling bullet to the head of an ogre makes them stumble 5 feet into an unoccupied space. At least, that's how a DM is most likely to narrate it. If you want to turn it into a Stephen Chow movie, talk to your DM.
Because, and again, here's the thing: what's the point? Okay, let's say you can knock them up or diagonally. They'll fall 5 feet, land on their feet, and take zero fall damage. You can't knock them up into a hazard. Not even a persistent AoE spell or other effect like sickening radiance will affect it because they aren't entering of their own power during their turn, nor are they starting their turn there unless something makes them stay within that area like solid ground. Which means you're basically shoving someone up at a 45 degree angle to land on a ledge that's in the AoE of something.
Every conceivable scenario that would require being able to move someone diagonally like this is solely designed with trying to game the system. Just like trying weaponize the monk's Slow Fall. Neither are RAW. Take your shenanigans out of this RAW forum and to your DM.
The point is that your interpretation creates a bunch of stupid interactions that obviously don't exist and are not intended it seems. You seemingly state to say spaces have no verticality yet that would imply something could pass over something else at 200 ft vertically but as long as it was 5ft horizontally you could attack it which is obviously wrong.
You state that is not what your intent is but its obvious that's what your point creates.
If your point is "the DM decides vertical space" then that is RAW and would obviously be up to a DM if they allow crusher to move a character up 5ft in the air and would be a better answer than "there is no vertical space" as that is obviously wrong.
As for what is the point...the point is that if we follow the wrong train of thought your "ruling" creates it causes some serious issues with 3D combat.
I don't think that there is a problem with the word choices being made with regard to movement and position.
I think the issue relates to interpretations of spells such as sickening radiance . "... When a creature moves into the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, that creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 4d10 radiant damage, suffer one level of exhaustion, and emit a dim, greenish light in a 5-foot radius. This light makes it impossible for the creature to benefit from being invisible. The light and any levels of exhaustion caused by this spell go away when the spell ends. ..."
I'd personally adjudicate that if either a person moved themselves into the spell's area or was moved there, they would face the spell's effects. However, the spell is open to an interpretation that, if a creature is moved into the area and then is instantly moved out, then it wasn't the creature that moves because they were moved.
I think this topic is firmly in the remit of talk to the DM or another thread. It's kind of a peripheral issue in relation to the workings of the crusher and telekinesis feats.
Not only WoTC says forced movement into AoE is allowed, they even consider it clever play.
Reading the description of any of those spells, you might wonder whether a creature is considered to be entering the spell’s area of effect if the area is created on the creature’s space. And if the area of effect can be moved—as the beam of moonbeam can—does moving it into a creature’s space count as the creature entering the area? Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it. Creating the area of effect on the creature or moving it onto the creature doesn’t count. If the creature is still in the area at the start of its turn, it is subjected to the area’s effect.
Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary, unless a spell says otherwise. You can, therefore, hurl a creature into the area with a spell like thunderwave. We consider that clever play, not an imbalance, so hurl away! Keep in mind, however, that a creature is subjected to such an area of effect only the first time it enters the area on a turn. You can’t move a creature in and out of it to damage it over and over again on the same turn.
In summary, a spell like moonbeam affects a creature when the creature passes into the spell’s area of effect and when the creature starts its turn there. You’re essentially creating a hazard on the battlefield.
Not only WoTC says forced movement into AoE is allowed, they even consider it clever play.
Reading the description of any of those spells, ...
you might wonder whether a creature is considered to be entering the spell’s area of effect if the area is created on the creature’s space. And if the area of effect can be moved—as the beam of moonbeam can—does moving it into a creature’s space count as the creature entering the area? Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it. Creating the area of effect on the creature or moving it onto the creature doesn’t count. If the creature is still in the area at the start of its turn, it is subjected to the area’s effect.
Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary, unless a spell says otherwise. You can, therefore, hurl a creature into the area with a spell like thunderwave. We consider that clever play, not an imbalance, so hurl away! Keep in mind, however, that a creature is subjected to such an area of effect only the first time it enters the area on a turn. You can’t move a creature in and out of it to damage it over and over again on the same turn.
In summary, a spell like moonbeam affects a creature when the creature passes into the spell’s area of effect and when the creature starts its turn there. You’re essentially creating a hazard on the battlefield.
I really would have liked this not to have been continued here. Direct messages can be a great way to handle potentially derailing topics.
The lead up to your quote:
"Some spells and other game features create an area of effect that does something when a creature enters that area for the first time on a turn or when a creature starts its turn in that area. The turn you cast such a spell, you’re primarily setting up hurt for your foes on later turns. Moonbeam, for example, creates a beam of light that can damage a creature who enters the beam or who starts its turn in the beam. Here are some spells with the same timing as moonbeam for their areas of effect:
· blade barrier
· cloudkill
· cloud of daggers
· Evard’s black tentacles
· forbiddance
· moonbeam
· sleet storm
· spirit guardians
Reading ..."
The fact that you did not include the list which happened not to include the spell in question seems suspicious. All this could have been handled in direct messaging. :'((
blade barrier "When a creature enters the wall's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
cloudkill "When a creature enters the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
cloud of daggers "... A creature takes 4d4 slashing damage when it enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there."
Evard’s black tentacles "When a creature enters the affected area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
forbiddance "... When a chosen creature enters the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
moonbeam "... When a creature enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
sleet storm "... When a creature enters the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
spirit guardians "... An affected creature's speed is halved in the area, and when the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, it must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, ..."
sickening radiance . "... When a creature moves into the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ... "
..., the spell is open to an interpretation that, if a creature is moved into the area and then is instantly moved out, then it wasn't the creature that moves because they were moved. ...
Create bonfire"... A creature must also make the saving throw when it moves into the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there. ..."
That's the other spell not on the wizards.com list, also with the wording "moves".
How did the article develop, I don't know. All I know is a d&d participant has made an interpretation of RAW.
I'd appreciate it if you can please drop it because it's not relevant to the thread.
If there were rules for baseball in D&D 5E, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But there aren't, and the abstracted rules for humanoid creatures are not universally applicable to every conceivable interaction.
As for jumping, your movement is just how far you can move in a given round. Just because a character can jump X feet doesn't mean they have to. You jump as far as you can move unless you use a Dash to extend your movement. Nobody hangs in the air. No need to pretend to be obtuse about this.
What rule states that humanoid creatures fall differently that non-humanoid creatures, or non-creatures? Without such a rule, why would the falling rules not apply equally to everything, barring a specific rule to the contrary?
As far as jumping, if you don't hang in the air. do you fall to the ground or keeping moving the remaining distance of your jump?
I think the jump to conclusions about movement being limited to horizontal doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If you’re going to say virtual movement is off limits because the feat doesn’t specify a direction, then why are you saying horizontal works?
you could just as easily say creatures can’t be moved horizontally by applying the same flawed logic.
if there is no specified limitations on direction, that means all directions are valid choices.
there are multiple features in tasha’s that force movement and are specified to be limited to a horizontal direction. The crusher feat was written broadly to allow more Choice in direction as well as the types of attacks that can be used with it.
Not sure who you're replying to.
if there is no specified limitation on direction, that means check with your DM.
If you think the conclusions reached about movement being limited to horizontal don’t hold up to scrutiny, feel free to indicate any actual flaws you see in reasonings presented as related to RAW.
This is the extent of rules for falling in the PHB. Note that it doesn't specify who or what it applies to, only that falling, "is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer." Not everything is an adventurer. Beyond that, it's ambiguous. We don't have a rate of falling, and we don't know if it affects just adventurers or other things, too. In other words, this is a general guideline for the DM to adjudicate on the fly.
Here are some optional rules expansions for falling, found in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Note they only explicitly apply to "you" and "creatures" which may or may not be capable of flight. Objects are not covered, though if a DM wished to apply these rules to an object I wouldn't begrudge them. Whether I'd do that might depend on the situation. I don't think I'd allow for a magic item, as resistant to damage as they are, to just shatter from a massive fall. Maybe some, but not all. Certainly not a "story item" like the Sunsword from Curse of Strahd.
And lastly, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything has additional rules for creatures falling into water and falling onto a creature. Again, no mention of non-creatures (i.e. objects), for a variety of reasons.
With regards to jumping, you can only jump as far as your remaining movement and one of several things will happen:
I might have missed a scenario or two, but this isn't difficult. Please, read up on the rules again.
###
The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't. Likewise, they tell you how something behaves, not how it doesn't. For example, the area of a grease isn't flammable not because the rules say it isn't, but because the rules don't say that it is flammable. Similarly, scorching ray cannot ignite objects and start fires because the spell description doesn't say that it can.
To apply this general principle to falling, the rules that only specifically mention creatures only apply to creatures. They do not apply to objects, and for a variety of reasons. When you're DM, you can impose a different interpretation. Just be aware that this interpretation won't be RAW.
This whole thing is irrelevant.
This relies on the interpretation that crusher is able to move a potentially one size larger creature to a height but, otherwise, yes. The action happens on the attackers initiative on their turn in the initiative sequence.
For a swing bat action to be effective, it would need to be enabled as a readied reaction. To be effective the Swing Bat action has to be timed with the arrival of the ball in the bat's effective range. As the action would have been readied to be used in response to another creature's action, the only control you would have on a baseball in 5e is whether you hit it or not.
That's what breaks the immersion for you? Not the whole magic, gods, undeads, fiends, devils, demons, dragons etc? But some dude smacking that bugbear 5ft into the air?
Nugz - Kobold Level 4 Bloodhunter/Order of the Mutant - Out there looking for snacks and evil monsters.
Ultrix Schwarzdorn - Human Level 6 Artificer/Armorer - Retired and works in his new shop.
Quercus Espenkiel - Gnome Level 9 Wizard/Order of Scribes - Turned into a book and sits on a shelf.
Artin - Fairy Level 4 Sorcerer/Wild Magic - Busy with annoying the townsfolk. Again.
Jabor - Fire Genasi - Level 4 Wizard/School of Evocation - The First Flame, The Last Chaos. Probably in jail, again.
In a world where magic empowers magical things, divinities empower divine things and fiends empower fiendish things..., it would change my immersion to something I would not personally choose.
What is it that empowers "you to knock an opponent potentially one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft"?
I'd certainly consider the premise you mentioned to be even more questionable if the bugbear was under the effects of an enlarge spell or similar so as to bring it from being medium-sized and into the large size category.
I might rule that a creature could be moved to a height on a critical or in a condition like a high damage roll but, otherwise, I'd certainly question the physical possibilities.
The reference to Open Hand Q&A is important as it destroy all your incorrect space notion argument. The Dev says a creature can be above you and you can push it vertically. All this talk means there is unoccupied space vertically and not just 2D, contrary to what you're arguing.
The adventure design i discuss is also important. The balcony i made reference is clear indication that there are vertical unoccupied space above the floor one on a 2D map.
You are right that the rules provides no guidelines for handling 3D. It's a concept we understand from reality even if the rules makes no menion of it. Just like humans in D&D reproduce by fornicating and often urinate and defecate even if the rules don't say a word about it.
All this does is to give an example of vertical movement as an implication of a Ki empowered action.
A character movement that involves jumping is another way to get to a height.
None of this mentions or relates to a combat definition of space.
It relates as both are forced movement, wether the target is pushed or moved 5 feet. The point is not how it's done, the point is that it can be done and that such space do exist.
Open Hand Technique allows for pushing a creature away. Space isn't mentioned because vertical spaces don't exist in the same manner that horizontal spaces do. And there's no requirement that they must be pushes back through unoccupied spaces, though that should be assumed, because their movement can be prematurely stopped by an obstacle. It's also a supernatural effect because, why not expressly magical, is powered by the expenditure of Ki. Now, can a Way of the Open Hand monk strike and move a target vertically? Yes, hypothetically, if the target were directly overtop and within reach. But how do you know?
Again, for the umpteenth time, spaces lack a vertical dimension. They merely abstractly exist at whatever height they're placed at. And without that concrete definition, that "space" doesn't exist on a mechanical level. The clear intent, based on the straightest reading of RAW allowable, is a sling bullet to the head of an ogre makes them stumble 5 feet into an unoccupied space. At least, that's how a DM is most likely to narrate it. If you want to turn it into a Stephen Chow movie, talk to your DM.
Because, and again, here's the thing: what's the point? Okay, let's say you can knock them up or diagonally. They'll fall 5 feet, land on their feet, and take zero fall damage. You can't knock them up into a hazard. Not even a persistent AoE spell or other effect like sickening radiance will affect it because they aren't entering of their own power during their turn, nor are they starting their turn there unless something makes them stay within that area like solid ground. Which means you're basically shoving someone up at a 45 degree angle to land on a ledge that's in the AoE of something.
Every conceivable scenario that would require being able to move someone diagonally like this is solely designed with trying to game the system. Just like trying weaponize the monk's Slow Fall. Neither are RAW. Take your shenanigans out of this RAW forum and to your DM.
Not everything consistently works in cubes.
First please don't order people to go take their arguments outta here as this is a Rule forum and the fact people disagree with you on RAW is not a reason to order them around like that.
Second yes it would be moved 5 feet, fall and take no damage.
Third, moving a creature into a AoE will deal damage unless the AoE specifically require willing movement. Telekinetic definitly trigger damage from Sickening Radiance.
The point is that your interpretation creates a bunch of stupid interactions that obviously don't exist and are not intended it seems. You seemingly state to say spaces have no verticality yet that would imply something could pass over something else at 200 ft vertically but as long as it was 5ft horizontally you could attack it which is obviously wrong.
You state that is not what your intent is but its obvious that's what your point creates.
If your point is "the DM decides vertical space" then that is RAW and would obviously be up to a DM if they allow crusher to move a character up 5ft in the air and would be a better answer than "there is no vertical space" as that is obviously wrong.
As for what is the point...the point is that if we follow the wrong train of thought your "ruling" creates it causes some serious issues with 3D combat.
Plaguescarred seems to me to be right on these points.
If a spell says that creatures will take damage when entering their AoEs, then they will take damage when entering their AoEs.
(Area is still typically divided into squares or hexs. Height components can well be quantified with measurements.
edit, having said that, the entry for gelatinous cube says "Ooze Cube. The cube takes up its entire space" and, while a mention of 5e space may still refer to area, this specific monster is a cube).
That's for sure. If a movement is adjudicated to happen then that movement will happen and the stated and/or judged consequences of that movement will take effect.
I don't think that there is a problem with the word choices being made with regard to movement and position.
I think the issue relates to interpretations of spells such as sickening radiance .
"... When a creature moves into the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, that creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 4d10 radiant damage, suffer one level of exhaustion, and emit a dim, greenish light in a 5-foot radius. This light makes it impossible for the creature to benefit from being invisible. The light and any levels of exhaustion caused by this spell go away when the spell ends. ..."
I'd personally adjudicate that if either a person moved themselves into the spell's area or was moved there, they would face the spell's effects.
However, the spell is open to an interpretation that, if a creature is moved into the area and then is instantly moved out, then it wasn't the creature that moves because they were moved.
I think this topic is firmly in the remit of talk to the DM or another thread. It's kind of a peripheral issue in relation to the workings of the crusher and telekinesis feats.
Not only WoTC says forced movement into AoE is allowed, they even consider it clever play.
I really would have liked this not to have been continued here. Direct messages can be a great way to handle potentially derailing topics.
The lead up to your quote:
"Some spells and other game features create an area of effect that does something when a creature enters that area for the first time on a turn or when a creature starts its turn in that area. The turn you cast such a spell, you’re primarily setting up hurt for your foes on later turns. Moonbeam, for example, creates a beam of light that can damage a creature who enters the beam or who starts its turn in the beam. Here are some spells with the same timing as moonbeam for their areas of effect:
· blade barrier
· cloudkill
· cloud of daggers
· Evard’s black tentacles
· forbiddance
· moonbeam
· sleet storm
· spirit guardians
Reading ..."
The fact that you did not include the list which happened not to include the spell in question seems suspicious. All this could have been handled in direct messaging. :'((
blade barrier "When a creature enters the wall's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
cloudkill "When a creature enters the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
cloud of daggers "... A creature takes 4d4 slashing damage when it enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there."
Evard’s black tentacles "When a creature enters the affected area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
forbiddance "... When a chosen creature enters the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
moonbeam "... When a creature enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
sleet storm "... When a creature enters the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ..."
spirit guardians "... An affected creature's speed is halved in the area, and when the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, it must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, ..."
sickening radiance .
"... When a creature moves into the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, ... "
Create bonfire "... A creature must also make the saving throw when it moves into the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there. ..."
That's the other spell not on the wizards.com list, also with the wording "moves".
How did the article develop, I don't know. All I know is a d&d participant has made an interpretation of RAW.
I'd appreciate it if you can please drop it because it's not relevant to the thread.