The limits included in the feat... are the limits of the feat. Additional limits you would like to add is called homebrewing. There is no stat requirement for crusher. There is no race requirement for crusher. Additional "situational limits" added is also homebrew. facing, called targets, and the angle of swing of a melee weapon are not part of the 5e rule toolkit, you are free to homebrew your own rules for this and then apply them to the crusher feat. However, they're certainly not RAI since they don't exist.
You are obviously right.
This rule is surprisingly straightforward, yes.
But it is ok to discuss RAI itself here
It is. The RAI is:
"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."
Exactly the same as the RAW is. You move them 5 feet. Devs agree, rules agree. If you don't agree, just homebrew it for your game. This shouldn't be controversial.
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 there’s nothing else to be said beyond “yea but like, the DM can do w/e” then there’s no value to be had in continuing this discussion. Happy holidays and happy gaming to you all.
I may have missed it since the thread is pretty long at this point, but has anyone cited a developer as saying that vertical wasn't intended for Crusher or any other similar feat or rule that doesn't mention it RAW? If not, then there is no RAI argument against it. You need to have something that shows a developer's intent in order to reasonably say something is Rules As Intended.
Not that example directly but early in the thread there is a clip of an interview with the lead designer, discussing these feats while they were still in development. He clearly says that the target is tossed/moved/etc by the force of the blow, which implies strongly that the direction of the blow matters.
There is no such thing as directionality of melee attacks in D&D 5e. You are welcome to homebrew your own system for this if you like, but really stop pushing this notion, it is just wrong.
Gerg would go further and also impose relative mass and/or attacker strength vs target mass limits. That is arguably also consistent with RAW in that the 'no more than one size class larger' limit speaks directly to that intent.
Adding strength requirements to the Crusher feat is also homebrew.
Personally I feel that that is less clear (both because it is a bigger calculation than simple attack direction and because force of a blow is not strictly lift strength limited). But nevertheless there is a RAI argument in his case too.
Please stop trying to pass your homebrew off as RAW or RAI.
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.
Adding strength requirements to the Crusher feat is also homebrew. ... Please stop trying to pass your homebrew off as RAW or RAI.
We can certainly apply strength tests to an interpretation of the crusher feat to check if that interpretation makes, for instance, real-world sense.
If you don't mind crusher making no real-world sense then this will not matter to you and you can proudly say, "yes, my interpretation of the crusher feat will enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick." If that's what you think then it shouldn't matter to you that someone is mentioning something that you might claim the feat is able to do.
Is it RAI for the crusher feat to fulfil the interpretation that it would even "enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick"?
You remain at liberty not to factor in issues like strength or body type (for instance whether a character/creature is long and gangly or short and stocky). It still remains fine for me to mention facts that can fairly be applied to interpretation.
You do you.
I'll do me.
Do you want to impose an interpretation of RAW that says that Crusher's, "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" means "you can move it 5 feet" up, onto people that might otherwise have interpreted Crusher's, "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" that the movement is just to facilitate getting it "to an unoccupied space"?
IF you do want to impose a 5ft up interpretation, onto people that may prefer a game with more physical realism. How would you account, for a view for a view that Crusher that it "enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick
Crusher just says "You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies..."
For gamers who may want some physical realism in their games, what practice would you think, for instance, "a 9 str elf" could have realistically undertaken to allow it "to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick"?
Not that example directly but early in the thread there is a clip of an interview with the lead designer, discussing these feats while they were still in development. He clearly says that the target is tossed/moved/etc by the force of the blow, which implies strongly that the direction of the blow matters.
For my part, I would accordingly allow 'up' as a valid direction if it is reasonable for a full strength blow to have come from underneath somehow. How easy that would be to arrange would depend on the weapon. I see that as completely consistent with RAI.
When WoTC intend for a forced movement to act this way and to not be directional, they use a different wording ''push away''
The interview might hint to some intent, but all i can say is whomever designed and edited the feat clearly intended the forced movement to be directional by using a different wording than ''push away''. I don't believe its a case where the feat is used more liberally than intended. I think it was purposefully worded to allow directional movement.
Oh my god, the “Bonus Action spells” debate has finally met its match! Haha
In my opinion, moving people 5ft vertically with Crusher is RAW. But it doesn’t matter because you can interpret it many different ways and you guys be going wild - just let it go if someone thinks differently.
Chaining two abilities (Action Crusher then BA Shield Master Shove) together to shove them twice before falling, is also not implied in any rule. None of the actions (Attack, Movement, Bonus Action, Reaction) allow you to interrupt another action before it is resolved, unless it explicitly says so.
You can’t move 5ft off of a ledge and then move again before falling because you want there to be no time between moves. There is no such thing as simultaneous actions on a turn.
You can’t move someone over a 5ft gap by using Crusher and then Telekinetic Feat for another 5ft, ignoring the fall in the middle.
You can’t Ready an action to stop from falling off a ledge when shoved off of it. The same way you can’t ready a move action to move back onto a ledge if you’re shoved off of it. A Reaction can’t interrupt something else unless it says so in the rules - and Ready always happens after the trigger.
You CAN use Feather Fall to interrupt falling only because it explicitly says so.
Again, 'push away' is problematic since the attack could come from some direction other than the caster directly. The example I have been using has been a catapult spell, which does blunt damage and therefore qualifies. Rather than try to find wording that works for that, remembering this is just a feat and they usually have short wordings, they took the better part of valor and went with the simpler version that ended up printed as RAW.
But that does not mean that is what was intended.
Pushed away from you is not problematic as the bludgeoning attack usually comes from you.
The rules already include a similar effect that is short wording, it's called Shove. Phrasing ',push away'' vs ''move it'' is not that longer.
The feat Crusher does not work on the Catapult spell as it is not an attack that hit but a saving throw.
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?
Wow, this one goes back to page 15 of this never-ending thread.
I'd say that it is a game with rules that you work with and, in situations in which there are ambiguous rules, you work to find reasoned interpretations of those rules that, led by the DM, you are collectively are prepared to work with.
So if someone has cover, it does not matter if the cover is between them and their attacker or not?
It does. Line of sight/effect is a thing, yes.
It is just as effective if the cover is behind them?
No.
If someone is shoved, 'away' means any direction you please instead of actually, you know, away?
The distance between their space and your space must increase.
Go back and read the rules before declaring yourself an expert. There is no facing rule in combat and in most cases directionality is irrelevant but that is not the same as it not existing.
It doesn't exist. You're looking for the Cover rules. They make zero mention of weapon directionality. You'll find no rules that do.
Yes, details of specific solutions is homebrew. However that does not equate to RAW being all there is to RAI. And if you are going to speak to RAI, then at least speak to RAI rather than just pretending RAW is all there is. You still are showing know acknowledgement of the difference.
The devs have given commentary on their intent, and tossing people around was the intent. RAI, rules as intended.
If they had intended the crusher feat to require a strength score they'd have mentioned it by now.
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.
So if someone has cover, it does not matter if the cover is between them and their attacker or not?
It does. Line of sight/effect is a thing, yes.
It is just as effective if the cover is behind them?
No.
If someone is shoved, 'away' means any direction you please instead of actually, you know, away?
The distance between their space and your space must increase.
Go back and read the rules before declaring yourself an expert. There is no facing rule in combat and in most cases directionality is irrelevant but that is not the same as it not existing.
It doesn't exist. You're looking for the Cover rules. They make zero mention of weapon directionality. You'll find no rules that do.
Yes, details of specific solutions is homebrew. However that does not equate to RAW being all there is to RAI. And if you are going to speak to RAI, then at least speak to RAI rather than just pretending RAW is all there is. You still are showing know acknowledgement of the difference.
The devs have given commentary on their intent, and tossing people around was the intent. RAI, rules as intended.
If they had intended the crusher feat to require a strength score they'd have mentioned it by now.
You say 'correct' to the first question, then correct to all the examples proving the answer to the first question is 'false.'
Line of sight is not a cover issue. Cover is not whether you can see a target or not but how hard it is to hit them due to the intervening cover. This means the direction of the attack matters, since if the attack comes from an angle there is no intervening cover, then there is no intervening cover.
"A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover" is speaking directly to direction of attack.
There is no facing, there is no directionality of attacks, there are no called shots. You can't hit someone on the left side. You can't hit someone on the right side. You can't hit someone from above, or below, or with an arcing twisting motion. Not mechanically. None of this is part of the rules. Quoting cover rules doesn't change it. Yes, you need line of sight/effect to your target but that has nothing to do with the angle of your attack. Your attack doesn't hit your target in a specified location nor a specified angle. There are no rules for determining that in this game.
I'm a bit at a loss. I'm not sure you're even posting on the correct game forum anymore. None of these things exist in D&D 5e.
For the distance between their space and your space to increase, they have to move (or be moved) in a direction that facilitates that.
Yep.
The intent was not just tossing people around.
That was part of it. They said as much, specifically, directly.
If they wanted a tossing people around feat they would almost certainly have tied it to grapple instead of a blunt attack.
No. They wanted to design feats tied to damage types. Has nothing to do with grapples.
And Crawford specifically talked about the impact of the weapon tossing the target.
Yeah. Get hit, get moved. 5'.
AND NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT A BLANKET REQUIREMENT TO GET THE FEAT OR TO USE IT GENERALLY. So please, stop repeating straw men.
Someone is advocating for it, actually. It isn't a straw man, they literally argued that a low strength character can't use crusher. Which is entirely false. They also suggested elves couldn't use it. Also false.
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.
This is not about facing but about relative position
The Crusher feat doesn't mention relative position. It just moves them, 5', unoccupied space.
If you have magic that does blunt damage and uses an attack roll (and thus would work with this feat) there might be possibilities . Likely means might be a chain warlock via their familiar or something.
If you are an echo knight you can attack via your echo.
?
And I did not see him argue that a low str character could not use Crusher but rather there might be situations where he would decide it wasn't useable. But that would be between him and his players.
Adding a Str requirement, or, even worse, simply not allowing the feat to function mid-game because of a low Strength, is entirely homebrew.
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.
This is not about facing but about relative position
If you have magic that does blunt damage and uses an attack roll (and thus would work with this feat) there might be possibilities . Likely means might be a chain warlock via their familiar or something.
While you must hit and deal bluegeoning damage in order to move the target, the actual forced movement is not relative to your position but his. In other words, you don't move it 5 feet from you, you move it 5 feet from it's actual position, with no relation to the attack's origin or your position whatsoever as written, the attack's origin doesn't influence the forced movement's direction in any way. Some may come to a different conclusion by listening to the podcast than reading the feat though.
And I did not see him argue that a low str character could not use Crusher but rather there might be situations where he would decide it wasn't useable. But that would be between him and his players.
Adding a Str requirement, or, even worse, simply not allowing the feat to function mid-game because of a low Strength, is entirely homebrew.
Saying that crusher facilitates 5 ft of vertical movement is a far fetched, video game or similar interpretation of the ambiguous text. It's still a valid interpretation for those that may like that style of game.
Details relating to a more realistic, sensible and rules focussed interpretation are yet to be replied to here.
As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text.
This is not about facing but about relative position
If you have magic that does blunt damage and uses an attack roll (and thus would work with this feat) there might be possibilities . Likely means might be a chain warlock via their familiar or something.
While you must hit and deal bluegeoning damage in order to move the target, the actual forced movement is not relative to your position but his. In other words, you don't move it 5 feet from you, you move it 5 feet from it's actual position, with no relation to the attack's origin or your position whatsoever as written, the attack's origin doesn't influence the forced movement's direction in any way. Some may come to a different conclusion by listening to the podcast than reading the feat though.
I agree as written and my RAI argument is based on that podcast.
What podcast are we talking about that's being allowed to trump JC's twitter feed for what we assume RAI is?
Saying that crusher facilitates 5 ft of vertical movement is a far fetched, video game or similar interpretation of the ambiguous text. It's still a valid interpretation for those that may like that style of game.
Details relating to a more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation are yet to be replied to here.
As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text.
Even if it is a " far fetched, video game or similar interpretation " , how is that relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
Which part of the text do you find unclear? Please be specific.
How is you having a " more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation " relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
"As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text." reads a awful lot like "As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans to homebrew.", because you called out vertical movement in a negative way, despite it not being called out in the text of the feat. That would lead some people to believe you plan to add a homebrewed rule about vertical movement as it relates to this feat.
Saying that crusher facilitates 5 ft of vertical movement is a far fetched, video game or similar interpretation of the ambiguous text. It's still a valid interpretation for those that may like that style of game.
Details relating to a more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation are yet to be replied tohere.
As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text.
Even if it is a " far fetched, video game or similar interpretation " , how is that relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
Which part of the text do you find unclear? Please be specific.
How is you having a " more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation " relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
"As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text." reads a awful lot like "As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans to homebrew.", because you called out vertical movement in a negative way, despite it not being called out in the text of the feat. That would lead some people to believe you plan to add a homebrewed rule about vertical movement as it relates to this feat.
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.
as follows:
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.
All we've got on this from Crusher is a text that says:
You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, granting you the following benefits: ...
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you. ...
I've also asked what practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that you can knock a creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
"A 5e human can weigh125 to 250 pounds while a racehorse weighs around 1100 lbs and a shire horse can weigh up to 2000 lbs."
Even though some medium creatures can be a lot lighter than humans and some large creatures are portrayed as being far more chunky than a horse, we can still consider these figures.
What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
One interpretation of the crusher text says that: "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [including vertical movement] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you". Another interpretation says that: "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [just for the purpose of getting it] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you".
Remember, a creature's space in combat is simply defined in 5e as "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and "the area it needs to fight effectively"
"unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC", how do you know which interpretation is intended? How do you know what's RAI?
Saying that crusher facilitates 5 ft of vertical movement is a far fetched, video game or similar interpretation of the ambiguous text. It's still a valid interpretation for those that may like that style of game.
Details relating to a more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation are yet to be replied tohere.
As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text.
Even if it is a " far fetched, video game or similar interpretation " , how is that relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
Which part of the text do you find unclear? Please be specific.
How is you having a " more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation " relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
"As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text." reads a awful lot like "As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans to homebrew.", because you called out vertical movement in a negative way, despite it not being called out in the text of the feat. That would lead some people to believe you plan to add a homebrewed rule about vertical movement as it relates to this feat.
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.
as follows:
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.
All we've got on this from Crusher is a text that says:
You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, granting you the following benefits: ...
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you. ...
I've also asked what practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that you can knock a creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
"A 5e human can weigh125 to 250 pounds while a racehorse weighs around 1100 lbs and a shire horse can weigh up to 2000 lbs."
Even though some medium creatures can be a lot lighter than humans and some large creatures are portrayed as being far more chunky than a horse, we can still consider these figures.
What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
One interpretation of the crusher text says that: "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [including vertical movement] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you". Another interpretation says that: "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [just for the purpose of getting it] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you".
Remember, a creature's space in combat is simply defined in 5e as "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and "the area it needs to fight effectively"
"unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC", how do you know which interpretation is intended? How do you know what's RAI?
So it's not ambiguous at all, and given that no one has cited anything else from the designers, there is no reason to believe RAI is anything other than RAW. None of us know what RAI is for certain, and it's certainly possible it is different for each designer. But we have no evidence to support anything other than RAW as a conclusion, and even less to claim that one specific speculation is RAI. So the by far most likely answer is that RAW is RAI. The designers have had plenty of time to state otherwise, and have chosen not to. The thing they did choose to do, is write what is in the book.
"when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [including vertical movement] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you"
The words you added do not add any options that did not already exist. Vertical movement is already possible, as is horizontal and diagonal, as long as it is not more than 5', & it is to a space that is not currently occupied.
"What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?"
Irrelevant. The rules state that it can be done, so it can be done. You may feel that the feat can be unrealistic, or silly, or whatever, but that does not change the fact that it is still a rule in the game. This applies as a counter to a lot of what you write. You add in requirements that are not in the text, and then use what you added as justification for why the feat doesn't work as written. There are no weight maximums, no requirement to state how the target's weight is countered, or anything else other than what is written in the rules.
And It doesn't matter how a creature's space is defined, as by the definition of unoccupied space, the target is not being moved into or thru a creature's space.
Saying that crusher facilitates 5 ft of vertical movement is a far fetched, video game or similar interpretation of the ambiguous text. It's still a valid interpretation for those that may like that style of game.
Details relating to a more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation are yet to be replied tohere.
As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text.
Even if it is a " far fetched, video game or similar interpretation " , how is that relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
Which part of the text do you find unclear? Please be specific.
How is you having a " more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation " relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
"As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text." reads a awful lot like "As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans to homebrew.", because you called out vertical movement in a negative way, despite it not being called out in the text of the feat. That would lead some people to believe you plan to add a homebrewed rule about vertical movement as it relates to this feat.
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.
as follows:
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.
All we've got on this from Crusher is a text that says:
You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, granting you the following benefits: ...
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you. ...
I've also asked what practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that you can knock a creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
"A 5e human can weigh125 to 250 pounds while a racehorse weighs around 1100 lbs and a shire horse can weigh up to 2000 lbs."
Even though some medium creatures can be a lot lighter than humans and some large creatures are portrayed as being far more chunky than a horse, we can still consider these figures.
What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
One interpretation of the crusher text says that: "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [including vertical movement] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you". Another interpretation says that: "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [just for the purpose of getting it] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you".
Remember, a creature's space in combat is simply defined in 5e as "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and "the area it needs to fight effectively"
"unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC", how do you know which interpretation is intended? How do you know what's RAI?
So it's not ambiguous at all, and given that no one has cited anything else from the designers, there is no reason to believe RAI is anything other than RAW. None of us know what RAI is for certain, and it's certainly possible it is different for each designer. But we have no evidence to support anything other than RAW as a conclusion, and even less to claim that one specific speculation is RAI. So the by far most likely answer is that RAW is RAI. The designers have had plenty of time to state otherwise, and have chosen not to. The thing they did choose to do, is write what is in the book. ...
Incorrect. We can refer to linguists/grammar specialists if you like but they will confirm that the text is ambiguous. ADD to that WotC's working definition of a space as meaning an area and I think that the interpretation of the RAW text that I'm working with is the more likely correct one.
The designers have also had plenty of time to say that crusher could be used to produce vertical movement but have not. Your logic could equally be used to indicate that my straightforward interpretation to be correct.
... "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [including vertical movement] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you" ...
"when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [just for the purpose of getting it] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you".
Same as the words I added here, the words are added to clearly indicate that there are at least these two possible interpretations of an ambiguous text.
Is the "for the purpose" interpretation a valid reading of the text? If you don't think so, why not?
... The words you added do not add any options that did not already exist. Vertical movement is already possible, as is horizontal and diagonal, as long as it is not more than 5', & it is to a space that is not currently occupied....
Whether the "[including vertical movement]" words I added, add to existing options depends on the working definition of space that the writers had in mind when formulating the rule. If, according to WotC's Combat rules on Movement and Position, they were working with their definition of a space is defined as an area, then all that is immediately is a movement "to an unoccupied space".
... "What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?"
Irrelevant. The rules state that it can be done, so it can be done. You may feel that the feat can be unrealistic, or silly, or whatever, but that does not change the fact that it is still a rule in the game. This applies as a counter to a lot of what you write. You add in requirements that are not in the text, and then use what you added as justification for why the feat doesn't work as written. There are no weight maximums, no requirement to state how the target's weight is countered, or anything else other than what is written in the rules. ...
You fail to provide any rational explanation as to how your interpretation of the feat is supposed to work, which leads me to believe that your interpretation is not RAI.
I do not think that the writers at WotC are such morons that they would write a feat in such a way that it cannot fit with any rational justification. I'd prefer to think that your interpretation of the text was not one that they intended.
Nonetheless, you still have a working interpretation of the form of words actually used and, while I doubt that your interpretation fits with RAI, it should, for now, be enough for a table willing to accept it.
... And It doesn't matter how a creature's space is defined, as by the definition of unoccupied space, the target is not being moved into or thru a creature's space.
I think that this is pretty central to the argument. The target is being moved "to an unoccupied space".
The text isn't written to say something such as that "you can move it 5 feet to [an] unoccupied space" but that "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". The text describes something specific. This leads me to conclude that they are likely using their Combat rules on Movement and Position, working definition space an area. That's the kind of thing it's being moved to.
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
Sorry Gerg, you’re just plainly wrong about what RAW is. With as little interpretation as possible, means you don’t imply anything beyond the least amount of interpretation. Your first paragraph is exactly that:
We've got three bits of information: action: "you can move it" distance: "5 feet" destination: "to an unoccupied space"
The narrowest interpretation is: “Move 5ft to an unoccupied space”. If you told any character this, and only this, any horizontal or vertical movement is allowed. This is as close to RAW as you can get (the least interpretation of written language).
The second you start parsing more than that, it becomes RAI, which again can be argued with the rest of your post (you even use the words “interpreted” constantly). But you cannot dispute that RAW allows for vertical movement. Any other links or deeper explanation is literally not part of the argument of RAW vs RAI.
Lastly - who cares? What does 5ft upward movement get you? Literally nothing of value. You cannot add a BA part way through the resolution of another Action, so the target immediately drops 5ft again and nothing happens.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This rule is surprisingly straightforward, yes.
It is. The RAI is:
"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."
Exactly the same as the RAW is. You move them 5 feet. Devs agree, rules agree. If you don't agree, just homebrew it for your game. This shouldn't be controversial.
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 there’s nothing else to be said beyond “yea but like, the DM can do w/e” then there’s no value to be had in continuing this discussion. Happy holidays and happy gaming to you all.
I'm going to always respond to blatant misinformation. Speaking of...
There is no such thing as directionality of melee attacks in D&D 5e. You are welcome to homebrew your own system for this if you like, but really stop pushing this notion, it is just wrong.
Adding strength requirements to the Crusher feat is also homebrew.
Please stop trying to pass your homebrew off as RAW or RAI.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We can certainly apply strength tests to an interpretation of the crusher feat to check if that interpretation makes, for instance, real-world sense.
If you don't mind crusher making no real-world sense then this will not matter to you and you can proudly say, "yes, my interpretation of the crusher feat will enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick." If that's what you think then it shouldn't matter to you that someone is mentioning something that you might claim the feat is able to do.
Is it RAI for the crusher feat to fulfil the interpretation that it would even "enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick"?
What we can then do, should we choose, is test interpretations with any reasonable argument.
I'll do me.
Do you want to impose an interpretation of RAW that says that Crusher's, "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" means "you can move it 5 feet" up, onto people that might otherwise have interpreted Crusher's, "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" that the movement is just to facilitate getting it "to an unoccupied space"?
IF you do want to impose a 5ft up interpretation, onto people that may prefer a game with more physical realism. How would you account, for a view for a view that Crusher that it "enable a 9 str elf to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick
Crusher just says "You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies..."
For gamers who may want some physical realism in their games, what practice would you think, for instance, "a 9 str elf" could have realistically undertaken to allow it "to knock an ogre or a horse to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick"?
When WoTC intend for a forced movement to act this way and to not be directional, they use a different wording ''push away''
The interview might hint to some intent, but all i can say is whomever designed and edited the feat clearly intended the forced movement to be directional by using a different wording than ''push away''. I don't believe its a case where the feat is used more liberally than intended. I think it was purposefully worded to allow directional movement.
Oh my god, the “Bonus Action spells” debate has finally met its match! Haha
In my opinion, moving people 5ft vertically with Crusher is RAW. But it doesn’t matter because you can interpret it many different ways and you guys be going wild - just let it go if someone thinks differently.
Chaining two abilities (Action Crusher then BA Shield Master Shove) together to shove them twice before falling, is also not implied in any rule. None of the actions (Attack, Movement, Bonus Action, Reaction) allow you to interrupt another action before it is resolved, unless it explicitly says so.
You can’t move 5ft off of a ledge and then move again before falling because you want there to be no time between moves. There is no such thing as simultaneous actions on a turn.
You can’t move someone over a 5ft gap by using Crusher and then Telekinetic Feat for another 5ft, ignoring the fall in the middle.
You can’t Ready an action to stop from falling off a ledge when shoved off of it. The same way you can’t ready a move action to move back onto a ledge if you’re shoved off of it. A Reaction can’t interrupt something else unless it says so in the rules - and Ready always happens after the trigger.
You CAN use Feather Fall to interrupt falling only because it explicitly says so.
Beyond that - let’s go for 19 more pages 🙂
Pushed away from you is not problematic as the bludgeoning attack usually comes from you.
The rules already include a similar effect that is short wording, it's called Shove. Phrasing ',push away'' vs ''move it'' is not that longer.
The feat Crusher does not work on the Catapult spell as it is not an attack that hit but a saving throw.
Wow, this one goes back to page 15 of this never-ending thread.
I'd say that it is a game with rules that you work with and, in situations in which there are ambiguous rules, you work to find reasoned interpretations of those rules that, led by the DM, you are collectively are prepared to work with.
I'd say that any contributor trying to universally assert a favourable, for them, interpretation of an ambiguous text was gaming the system.
Correct.
It does. Line of sight/effect is a thing, yes.
No.
The distance between their space and your space must increase.
It doesn't exist. You're looking for the Cover rules. They make zero mention of weapon directionality. You'll find no rules that do.
The devs have given commentary on their intent, and tossing people around was the intent. RAI, rules as intended.
If they had intended the crusher feat to require a strength score they'd have mentioned it by now.
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 no facing, there is no directionality of attacks, there are no called shots. You can't hit someone on the left side. You can't hit someone on the right side. You can't hit someone from above, or below, or with an arcing twisting motion. Not mechanically. None of this is part of the rules. Quoting cover rules doesn't change it. Yes, you need line of sight/effect to your target but that has nothing to do with the angle of your attack. Your attack doesn't hit your target in a specified location nor a specified angle. There are no rules for determining that in this game.
I'm a bit at a loss. I'm not sure you're even posting on the correct game forum anymore. None of these things exist in D&D 5e.
Yep.
That was part of it. They said as much, specifically, directly.
No. They wanted to design feats tied to damage types. Has nothing to do with grapples.
Yeah. Get hit, get moved. 5'.
Someone is advocating for it, actually. It isn't a straw man, they literally argued that a low strength character can't use crusher. Which is entirely false. They also suggested elves couldn't use it. Also false.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The Crusher feat doesn't mention relative position. It just moves them, 5', unoccupied space.
Crusher feat doesn't require magical bludgeoning damage.
?
Adding a Str requirement, or, even worse, simply not allowing the feat to function mid-game because of a low Strength, is entirely homebrew.
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.
While you must hit and deal bluegeoning damage in order to move the target, the actual forced movement is not relative to your position but his. In other words, you don't move it 5 feet from you, you move it 5 feet from it's actual position, with no relation to the attack's origin or your position whatsoever as written, the attack's origin doesn't influence the forced movement's direction in any way. Some may come to a different conclusion by listening to the podcast than reading the feat though.
Saying that crusher facilitates 5 ft of vertical movement is a far fetched, video game or similar interpretation of the ambiguous text. It's still a valid interpretation for those that may like that style of game.
Details relating to a more realistic, sensible and rules focussed interpretation are yet to be replied to here.
As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text.
What podcast are we talking about that's being allowed to trump JC's twitter feed for what we assume RAI is?
Even if it is a " far fetched, video game or similar interpretation " , how is that relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
Which part of the text do you find unclear? Please be specific.
How is you having a " more realistic, sensible and rules focused interpretation " relevant to RAW (or RAI, unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC)?
"As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans for a straightforward interpretation of the text." reads a awful lot like "As you know, I'm not planning any homebrew but have simple plans to homebrew.", because you called out vertical movement in a negative way, despite it not being called out in the text of the feat. That would lead some people to believe you plan to add a homebrewed rule about vertical movement as it relates to this feat.
In the link, I provided I replied to this content
as follows:
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.
All we've got on this from Crusher is a text that says:
You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, granting you the following benefits:
...
...
I've also asked what practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that you can knock a creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
Way back on page 6 of this thread I noted that:
"A 5e human can weigh 125 to 250 pounds while a racehorse weighs around 1100 lbs and a shire horse can weigh up to 2000 lbs."
Even though some medium creatures can be a lot lighter than humans and some large creatures are portrayed as being far more chunky than a horse, we can still consider these figures.
What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?
One interpretation of the crusher text says that:
"when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [including vertical movement] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you".
Another interpretation says that:
"when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [just for the purpose of getting it] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you".
Remember, a creature's space in combat is simply defined in 5e as "the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat" and "the area it needs to fight effectively"
"unless you're a designer of 5E at WotC", how do you know which interpretation is intended? How do you know what's RAI?
So it's not ambiguous at all, and given that no one has cited anything else from the designers, there is no reason to believe RAI is anything other than RAW. None of us know what RAI is for certain, and it's certainly possible it is different for each designer. But we have no evidence to support anything other than RAW as a conclusion, and even less to claim that one specific speculation is RAI. So the by far most likely answer is that RAW is RAI. The designers have had plenty of time to state otherwise, and have chosen not to. The thing they did choose to do, is write what is in the book.
"when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [including vertical movement] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you"
The words you added do not add any options that did not already exist. Vertical movement is already possible, as is horizontal and diagonal, as long as it is not more than 5', & it is to a space that is not currently occupied.
"What practice in the art of crushing (without homebrew) could support the interpretation that a 125 to 250 pound creature can knock a 1000 to 2000 pound creature one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick?"
Irrelevant. The rules state that it can be done, so it can be done. You may feel that the feat can be unrealistic, or silly, or whatever, but that does not change the fact that it is still a rule in the game. This applies as a counter to a lot of what you write. You add in requirements that are not in the text, and then use what you added as justification for why the feat doesn't work as written. There are no weight maximums, no requirement to state how the target's weight is countered, or anything else other than what is written in the rules.
And It doesn't matter how a creature's space is defined, as by the definition of unoccupied space, the target is not being moved into or thru a creature's space.
Incorrect. We can refer to linguists/grammar specialists if you like but they will confirm that the text is ambiguous. ADD to that WotC's working definition of a space as meaning an area and I think that the interpretation of the RAW text that I'm working with is the more likely correct one.
The designers have also had plenty of time to say that crusher could be used to produce vertical movement but have not. Your logic could equally be used to indicate that my straightforward interpretation to be correct.
"when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet [just for the purpose of getting it] to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you".
Same as the words I added here, the words are added to clearly indicate that there are at least these two possible interpretations of an ambiguous text.
Is the "for the purpose" interpretation a valid reading of the text? If you don't think so, why not?
Whether the "[including vertical movement]" words I added, add to existing options depends on the working definition of space that the writers had in mind when formulating the rule. If, according to WotC's Combat rules on Movement and Position, they were working with their definition of a space is defined as an area, then all that is immediately is a movement "to an unoccupied space".
You fail to provide any rational explanation as to how your interpretation of the feat is supposed to work, which leads me to believe that your interpretation is not RAI.
I do not think that the writers at WotC are such morons that they would write a feat in such a way that it cannot fit with any rational justification. I'd prefer to think that your interpretation of the text was not one that they intended.
Nonetheless, you still have a working interpretation of the form of words actually used and, while I doubt that your interpretation fits with RAI, it should, for now, be enough for a table willing to accept it.
I think that this is pretty central to the argument. The target is being moved "to an unoccupied space".
The text isn't written to say something such as that "you can move it 5 feet to [
an] unoccupied space" but that "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". The text describes something specific. This leads me to conclude that they are likely using their Combat rules on Movement and Position, working definition space an area. That's the kind of thing it's being moved to.Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
Sorry Gerg, you’re just plainly wrong about what RAW is. With as little interpretation as possible, means you don’t imply anything beyond the least amount of interpretation. Your first paragraph is exactly that:
The narrowest interpretation is: “Move 5ft to an unoccupied space”. If you told any character this, and only this, any horizontal or vertical movement is allowed. This is as close to RAW as you can get (the least interpretation of written language).
The second you start parsing more than that, it becomes RAI, which again can be argued with the rest of your post (you even use the words “interpreted” constantly). But you cannot dispute that RAW allows for vertical movement. Any other links or deeper explanation is literally not part of the argument of RAW vs RAI.
Lastly - who cares? What does 5ft upward movement get you? Literally nothing of value. You cannot add a BA part way through the resolution of another Action, so the target immediately drops 5ft again and nothing happens.