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. :'((
I did not include the spell list because they're just exemples, i posted the relevant part in response to statement that the move was not triggering AoE Effect, just to illustrate that it does, as a follow up to my post #292 and felt it was good to post it here to support what i previously said It was not meant to be a response to you (hence why i did not quote you) so please don't take it personal
It's also a supernatural effect because, why not expressly magical, is powered by the expenditure of Ki.
If you have trouble rectifying the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat with a non-magical effect in your games... just call it a magical effect then in the same way Ki is. How you narrate the ability doesn't matter 99% of the time it is just here as narrative.
Mechanically, rules: They move 5' into unoccupied space when hit with bludgeoning damage.
You can describe this process however you want. Are they physically knocking them there? Are they telekinetically hitting them? Maybe they shift all of existence 5' and the bludgeoning damage pinned the target in place so he only relatively moved 5' compared to all of existence. IDK dude, you have complete narrative freedom with these feats. They didn't add the Fluff so that we can.
Why is this hard? Describe it as a magical effect if you want. A blast, a shockwave. Complete freedom to narrate, here, complete. There is 0 fluff you must provide it.
You seem to be defaulting to that there is some natural physical cause for the movement, but the feat doesn't say that either. It provides zero narrative clues as to how it works, you need to provide it. So provide an explanation that works for your story.
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?
They wouldn't need to be directly on top, just on higher ground or otherwise above them and at least adjacent. ie. Diagonally up 5' would work.
Again, for the umpteenth time, spaces lack a vertical dimension.
Uh, naw. You're entirely making this up and trying to pass your homebrew off as RAW.
They merely abstractly exist at whatever height they're placed at.
Everything exists abstractly in all dimensions, not just vertically...
And without that concrete definition, that "space" doesn't exist on a mechanical level.
You're arguing yourself into pretzels over here. Now spaces don't exist?? Ok.
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.
Stumble? That is narrative fluff. You are free to describe how they move however you like but your narrative fluff is not everyone else's RAW.
At least, that's how a DM is most likely to narrate it.
Again, your narration is not everyone else's RAW.
If you want to turn it into a Stephen Chow movie, talk to your DM.
See above. You don't narrate other people's games and it is weird you're trying to.
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.
You not understanding why someone wants to do something doesn't mean they can't do it. RAW they move 5'. You don't need to know why they want to do it. They can still do it.
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.
Generally, I am my DM. Many f the people who come here are DMs themselves too. Telling people to stop talking about the rules and ask their DM isn't really what we do 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 have trouble rectifying the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat with a non-magical effect in your games... just call it a magical effect then in the same way Ki is. ....
Oh, you were telling us what to do at our tables. Now ~we're not so happy.
If you have trouble rectifying the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat with a non-magical effect in your games... just call it a magical effect then in the same way Ki is. ....
Oh, you were telling us what to do at our tables. Now ~we're not so happy.
I have and will continue to tell you that you're free to narrate the effect in any way you want to. And that regardless how you choose to narrate it, mechanically, RAW: it moves them 5'.
Describe that however you like. How you describe it has no bearing on what the RAW is.
PS. Clipping my sentences to try to portray them as having the opposite message is not really a pro gamer move. You've got to know it is transparent and obvious, right? People can just read the original context still.
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.
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.
What if I were to tell you that the system you’re talking about being gamed, is a system that is actually a game?
If you have trouble rectifying the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat with a non-magical effect in your games... just call it a magical effect then in the same way Ki is. ....
Oh, you were telling us what to do at our tables. Now ~we're not so happy.
I have and will continue to tell you that you're free to narrate the effect in any way you want to. And that regardless how you choose to narrate it, mechanically, RAW: it moves them 5'.
Describe that however you like. How you describe it has no bearing on what the RAW is.
PS. Clipping my sentences to try to portray them as having the opposite message is not really a pro gamer move. You've got to know it is transparent and obvious, right? People can just read the original context still.
It's also a supernatural effect because, why not expressly magical, is powered by the expenditure of Ki.
If you have trouble rectifying the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat with a non-magical effect in your games... just call it a magical effect then in the same way Ki is. How you narrate the ability doesn't matter 99% of the time it is just here as narrative. ...
People can decide both on how they narrate things and what they narrate.
You're talking to people who clearly are having no problems with "the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat" and suggesting that they do.
"People can just read the original context still."
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? ... Every conceivable scenario that would require being able to move someone diagonally like this is solely designed with trying to game the system. ...
"If you have trouble rectifying the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat" to let a medium-sized creature knock a large creature to a height of 5 ft with a kick or a stick by all means find a way to narrate in non-RAW content at your table to your heart's content.
Personally, I don't consider the RAW to be broken.
If you have trouble rectifying the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat with a non-magical effect in your games... just call it a magical effect then in the same way Ki is. ....
Oh, you were telling us what to do at our tables. Now ~we're not so happy.
I have and will continue to tell you that you're free to narrate the effect in any way you want to. And that regardless how you choose to narrate it, mechanically, RAW: it moves them 5'.
Describe that however you like. How you describe it has no bearing on what the RAW is.
PS. Clipping my sentences to try to portray them as having the opposite message is not really a pro gamer move. You've got to know it is transparent and obvious, right? People can just read the original context still.
Congrats. It is RAW.
Correct.
That does not mean it makes any sense, does not mean that it is RAI nor that any given DM is obligated to accept it, nor that any DM who rules otherwise is some sort of horrible DM who is just terrible and some sort of big meanie.
It is also RAI.
You're not obligated to use any part of the rules you don't want. That is entirely acceptable in 5e. That is called homebrewing and there is a forum dedicated to it here on dndbeyond for you to discuss it to your hearts content.
Again, whatever your DM and your table are willing to accept is up to them. You are not obligated to play at any table I run either, nor that run by anyone else.
So please, enough with this 'pro rules lawyer gamer' rhetoric.
k
RAW shaming does not help win anyone over.
If you post misinformation on what the rule is, it will get corrected.
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 have trouble rectifying the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat with a non-magical effect in your games... just call it a magical effect then in the same way Ki is. ....
Oh, you were telling us what to do at our tables. Now ~we're not so happy.
I have and will continue to tell you that you're free to narrate the effect in any way you want to. And that regardless how you choose to narrate it, mechanically, RAW: it moves them 5'.
Describe that however you like. How you describe it has no bearing on what the RAW is.
PS. Clipping my sentences to try to portray them as having the opposite message is not really a pro gamer move. You've got to know it is transparent and obvious, right? People can just read the original context still.
Congrats. It is RAW.
Correct.
Strictly speaking, it's an interpretation of RAW. If your table agrees to go by that interpretation, fine.
That does not mean it makes any sense, does not mean that it is RAI nor that any given DM is obligated to accept it, nor that any DM who rules otherwise is some sort of horrible DM who is just terrible and some sort of big meanie.
It is also RAI.
You're not obligated to use any part of the rules you don't want. That is entirely acceptable in 5e. That is called homebrewing and there is a forum dedicated to it here on dndbeyond for you to discuss it to your hearts content. ...
Maybe it's RAI. Maybe it's not. All we've got is rules as written.
You're not obligated to use any part of the rules you don't want. That is entirely acceptable in 5e. That is called homebrewing and there is a forum dedicated to it here on dndbeyond for you to discuss it to your hearts content.
You're similarly not obligated to concede to any particular interpretation of the rules.
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)
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)
With some further context Crawford said from 28:10 "... and this was also a chance to explore little sort of add on effects that are nods to what it might feel like to get clobbered by one of these damage types. This is why, you know, the bludgeoning damage one can move you with this idea of you getting, you know, crushed or smashed or hurled around."
In response to a question "is it intended for those feats [crusher piercer and slasher] to be missing the weapon keyword or is is the intent that no no no these are still inherent feats to your weapon use. 30:25 "So we very intentionally did not use the word weapon here. In fact, the word appeared in one of the feats in one of the earlier drafts and we cut it because we want these to have broad use. What that means is if you happen to have one of these feats and you cast a spell that deals let's say you're a piercer and you cast a spell that deals piercing damage, this feat will work with that spell and that's an intensional part of the feat to, again, reward you for making the resource commitment in your character building to a feat because, again, picking a feat is a big deal because you've given up, you know, your full ability score increase for that level when you choose a feat.
yeah, a similar question had come in if it applies to unarmed attacks, ranged weapon attacks that do those types of damage types? 31:24 "Absolutely, yeah, you, this is one of those cases where it is as generous as the wording implies, you know, where it says if-when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you get this benefit, so if you hit someone with an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage, you get this benefit and that's very intensional. The only, basically the only requirements you have to meet for like, I'm looking at the crusher feat, for that second bullet is that you have to hit a creature - with an attack - that deals bludgeoning damage, full stop. So that could be a spell, that could be a fist, it could be a club, it could be a table leg, any of those things would work with this."
For me, "crusher" implies being crushed between two objects not, neccessarily, being launched into the air.
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
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.
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.
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.
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? No, not without their DM's consent. You're only working on an interpretation.
Space in this context is not the creature's space since it is not unnocupied, but some other space not already occupied by a creature or object. Here it refers to any other space around it. So the question you gotta ask is;
1. Is this space within 5 feet?
2. It this space unnoccupied?
If the answer is yes to both, it's a valid space to move the target with Crusher as written.
Space in this context is not the creature's space since it is not unnocupied, but some other space not already occupied by a creature or object. Here it refers to any other space around it. So the question you gotta ask is;
1. Is this space within 5 feet?
2. It this space unnoccupied?
If the answer is yes to both, it's a valid space to move the target with Crusher as written.
Again it's down to your choice of definitions of terms used in the description of a combat-related feat.
In a discussion of combat in which there is a clear within rules of combat definition of space, then a logical interpretation that may be taken is that the rules of combat definition of space may, potentially, be used.
Either way, we could be moving "the target with Crusher as written". It ALL depends on the interpretation taken by the DM.
DMs are ALSO free to interpret the texts differently.
Vertical space exist in D&D, which flying creatures occupy and that we can see expressed on maps with different height features for exemple. This is not about the feat but the world in general.
A DM can certainly decide to limit itself to horizontal axis only if it want but it would be very limiting and unrealistic. Contradictions would happen soon enought.
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
What I was saying is that the intent is for the results to be related to the cause, so, while I agree that it could potentially knock someone upwards, the blow must have struck that someone from underneath somehow. There are ways to achieve such but they are limited.
Similarly to knock someone into one of the spaces left or right of the attacker, the blow must have come from the opposite side of the target with respect to the attacker. The Catapult spell was an example I gave as a means to accomplish this.
And to me, that is clearly RAI,
Its more limiting than the feat says as written and no RAI evidences from the Dev support that claim. On the contrary being moved 5 feet anywhere fits the Dev's exemple of being "hurled around".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I did not include the spell list because they're just exemples, i posted the relevant part in response to statement that the move was not triggering AoE Effect, just to illustrate that it does, as a follow up to my post #292 and felt it was good to post it here to support what i previously said It was not meant to be a response to you (hence why i did not quote you) so please don't take it personal
Don't derail this thread by changing to that topic. It has a thread, talk about it there if you like.
If you have trouble rectifying the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat with a non-magical effect in your games... just call it a magical effect then in the same way Ki is. How you narrate the ability doesn't matter 99% of the time it is just here as narrative.
Mechanically, rules: They move 5' into unoccupied space when hit with bludgeoning damage.
You can describe this process however you want. Are they physically knocking them there? Are they telekinetically hitting them? Maybe they shift all of existence 5' and the bludgeoning damage pinned the target in place so he only relatively moved 5' compared to all of existence. IDK dude, you have complete narrative freedom with these feats. They didn't add the Fluff so that we can.
Why is this hard? Describe it as a magical effect if you want. A blast, a shockwave. Complete freedom to narrate, here, complete. There is 0 fluff you must provide it.
You seem to be defaulting to that there is some natural physical cause for the movement, but the feat doesn't say that either. It provides zero narrative clues as to how it works, you need to provide it. So provide an explanation that works for your story.
They wouldn't need to be directly on top, just on higher ground or otherwise above them and at least adjacent. ie. Diagonally up 5' would work.
Uh, naw. You're entirely making this up and trying to pass your homebrew off as RAW.
Everything exists abstractly in all dimensions, not just vertically...
You're arguing yourself into pretzels over here. Now spaces don't exist?? Ok.
Stumble? That is narrative fluff. You are free to describe how they move however you like but your narrative fluff is not everyone else's RAW.
Again, your narration is not everyone else's RAW.
See above. You don't narrate other people's games and it is weird you're trying to.
You not understanding why someone wants to do something doesn't mean they can't do it. RAW they move 5'. You don't need to know why they want to do it. They can still do it.
Generally, I am my DM. Many f the people who come here are DMs themselves too. Telling people to stop talking about the rules and ask their DM isn't really what we do 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.
Awesome, you do that at your table. Everyone is happy.
Oh, you were telling us what to do at our tables. Now ~we're not so happy.
I have and will continue to tell you that you're free to narrate the effect in any way you want to. And that regardless how you choose to narrate it, mechanically, RAW: it moves them 5'.
Describe that however you like. How you describe it has no bearing on what the RAW is.
PS. Clipping my sentences to try to portray them as having the opposite message is not really a pro gamer move. You've got to know it is transparent and obvious, right? People can just read the original context still.
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.
What if I were to tell you that the system you’re talking about being gamed, is a system that is actually a game?
Yes, they can.
People can decide both on how they narrate things and what they narrate.
You're talking to people who clearly are having no problems with "the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat" and suggesting that they do.
"People can just read the original context still."
"If you have trouble rectifying the mechanical effects of the Crusher feat" to let a medium-sized creature knock a large creature to a height of 5 ft with a kick or a stick by all means find a way to narrate in non-RAW content at your table to your heart's content.
Personally, I don't consider the RAW to be broken.
I'd certainly let that interpretation be used in cases where I thought it could mechanically fit.
Correct.
It is also RAI.
You're not obligated to use any part of the rules you don't want. That is entirely acceptable in 5e. That is called homebrewing and there is a forum dedicated to it here on dndbeyond for you to discuss it to your hearts content.
k
If you post misinformation on what the rule is, it will get corrected.
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.
Strictly speaking, it's an interpretation of RAW. If your table agrees to go by that interpretation, fine.
Maybe it's RAI. Maybe it's not. All we've got is rules as written.
You're similarly not obligated to concede to any particular interpretation of the rules.
Agreed.
But if you insist on single interpretations of ambiguous rules you will get refuted.
It's ok to agree to differ.
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)
With some further context Crawford said from 28:10 "... and this was also a chance to explore little sort of add on effects that are nods to what it might feel like to get clobbered by one of these damage types. This is why, you know, the bludgeoning damage one can move you with this idea of you getting, you know, crushed or smashed or hurled around."
In response to a question "is it intended for those feats [crusher piercer and slasher] to be missing the weapon keyword or is is the intent that no no no these are still inherent feats to your weapon use. 30:25 "So we very intentionally did not use the word weapon here. In fact, the word appeared in one of the feats in one of the earlier drafts and we cut it because we want these to have broad use. What that means is if you happen to have one of these feats and you cast a spell that deals let's say you're a piercer and you cast a spell that deals piercing damage, this feat will work with that spell and that's an intensional part of the feat to, again, reward you for making the resource commitment in your character building to a feat because, again, picking a feat is a big deal because you've given up, you know, your full ability score increase for that level when you choose a feat.
yeah, a similar question had come in if it applies to unarmed attacks, ranged weapon attacks that do those types of damage types? 31:24 "Absolutely, yeah, you, this is one of those cases where it is as generous as the wording implies, you know, where it says if-when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you get this benefit, so if you hit someone with an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage, you get this benefit and that's very intensional. The only, basically the only requirements you have to meet for like, I'm looking at the crusher feat, for that second bullet is that you have to hit a creature - with an attack - that deals bludgeoning damage, full stop. So that could be a spell, that could be a fist, it could be a club, it could be a table leg, any of those things would work with this."
For me, "crusher" implies being crushed between two objects not, neccessarily, being launched into the air.
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:
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.
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, 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?
No, not without their DM's consent. You're only working on an interpretation.
Space in this context is not the creature's space since it is not unnocupied, but some other space not already occupied by a creature or object. Here it refers to any other space around it. So the question you gotta ask is;
1. Is this space within 5 feet?
2. It this space unnoccupied?
If the answer is yes to both, it's a valid space to move the target with Crusher as written.
Again it's down to your choice of definitions of terms used in the description of a combat-related feat.
In a discussion of combat in which there is a clear within rules of combat definition of space, then a logical interpretation that may be taken is that the rules of combat definition of space may, potentially, be used.
Either way, we could be moving "the target with Crusher as written". It ALL depends on the interpretation taken by the DM.
DMs are ALSO free to interpret the texts differently.
Vertical space exist in D&D, which flying creatures occupy and that we can see expressed on maps with different height features for exemple. This is not about the feat but the world in general.
A DM can certainly decide to limit itself to horizontal axis only if it want but it would be very limiting and unrealistic. Contradictions would happen soon enought.
Its more limiting than the feat says as written and no RAI evidences from the Dev support that claim. On the contrary being moved 5 feet anywhere fits the Dev's exemple of being "hurled around".