Keeping to things that make sense, at least to the extent of internal logic, is certainly one of my goals.
I think it's a stretch to say that a RAW text that otherwise states direction, permits a medium creature that can't jump over 1 ft to knock a large creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
I certainly doubt it's RAI.
We can still wait for the devs to comment.
They have already commented that a 8 STR open hand monk can push a creature up so I think they would likely say this is fine too but alas they haven't commented.
Strength is not a requirement for the crusher feat. We know their intent is going to be that you can move the target even if you have a 8 Str. All you need to do is deal bludgeoning damage, and for them to not be more than 1 size larger than you.
Keeping to things that make sense, at least to the extent of internal logic, is certainly one of my goals.
I think it's a stretch to say that a RAW text that otherwise states direction, permits a medium creature that can't jump over 1 ft to knock a large creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
I certainly doubt it's RAI.
We can still wait for the devs to comment.
They have already commented that a 8 STR open hand monk can push a creature up so I think they would likely say this is fine too but alas they haven't commented.
I'd likely think that, without an explanation like The Magic of Ki, they'd stick with the RAW direction prescribed by Crusher, "to an unoccupied space". An interpretation of crusher that says you might practice or art your way to knock ogres 5 ft off the ground remains inexplicable and out of step with its parallel feats, piercer and slasher.
Maybe the devs will come up with some similarly magical explanation for crusher but I suspect they'll leave it with the realm of physical possibility.
Keeping to things that make sense, at least to the extent of internal logic, is certainly one of my goals.
I think it's a stretch to say that a RAW text that otherwise states direction, permits a medium creature that can't jump over 1 ft to knock a large creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
I certainly doubt it's RAI.
We can still wait for the devs to comment.
They have already commented that a 8 STR open hand monk can push a creature up so I think they would likely say this is fine too but alas they haven't commented.
I'd likely think that, without an explanation like The Magic of Ki, they'd stick with the RAW direction prescribed by Crusher, "to an unoccupied space".
Unoccupied spaces have vertical axis. Up and down exist.
An interpretation of crusher that says you might practice or art your way to knock ogres 5 ft off the ground remains inexplicable and out of step with its parallel feats, piercer and slasher.
Nothing says this has to be mundane. it can be as spectacular and as supernatural as you'd like it to be. If the only thing that can explain someone can move a larger creature around, in your mind, is something mystical... then call Crusher mystical. Some feats involve magic, maybe this one does too in your world.
Maybe the devs will come up with some similarly magical explanation for crusher but I suspect they'll leave it with the realm of physical possibility.
They specifically didn't add narrative explanation for this feat so that you could fill in the blank. That way it is universal to whatever character concept you're trying to work it into.
Keeping to things that make sense, at least to the extent of internal logic, is certainly one of my goals.
I think it's a stretch to say that a RAW text that otherwise states direction, permits a medium creature that can't jump over 1 ft to knock a large creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
I certainly doubt it's RAI.
We can still wait for the devs to comment.
Internal logic?
A halfling with the sentinel feat can stop a charging tarrasque in its tracks.
Someone with the chef feat can make food that heals injuries.
Its fairly easy to build a monk that can break the sound barrier.
Most characters, fairly early in their career, can fall off a 100 foot cliff, and then just get up and walk away.
It's a game, it doesn't attempt to simulate physics or reality.
But its the feat that matters here. A 9 str doesn't let you knock someone around, the crusher feat does. A feat represents intensive specialization that lets you do something that few other people can do. Considering the very small part of the population that ever gets any feats, its incredibly rare, and its one of the things that sets PCs apart from commoners. So someone with this feat has worked at being able to do it, and now they can.
And practically, the whole argument is a straw man. No one with a 9 str would ever take this feat. If you have a 9 str, you are not walking up and punching people. You're either a caster, who isn't going to spend their feats on something they'd never use. Or you're a dex-based martial, and no bludgeoning weapons have the finesse property. The only option which might take it is a monk, which, if anyone is going to punch someone hard enough to move them, its a monk. So you're arguing about a problem that does not exist.
Keeping to things that make sense, at least to the extent of internal logic, is certainly one of my goals.
I think it's a stretch to say that a RAW text that otherwise states direction, permits a medium creature that can't jump over 1 ft to knock a large creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
I certainly doubt it's RAI.
We can still wait for the devs to comment.
They have already commented that a 8 STR open hand monk can push a creature up so I think they would likely say this is fine too but alas they haven't commented.
I'd likely think that, without an explanation like The Magic of Ki, they'd stick with the RAW direction prescribed by Crusher, "to an unoccupied space".
An interpretation of crusher that says you might practice or art your way to knock ogres 5 ft off the ground remains inexplicable and out of step with its parallel feats, piercer and slasher.
Nothing says this has to be mundane. it can be as spectacular and as supernatural as you'd like it to be. If the only thing that can explain someone can move a larger creature around, in your mind, is something mystical... then call Crusher mystical. Some feats involve magic, maybe this one does too in your world. ...
Sure, and if you'd like to homebrew some spectacular or supernatural explanation to make sense of your interpretation of the feat you are perfectly at liberty to do so.
Maybe the devs will come up with some similarly magical explanation for crusher but I suspect they'll leave it with the realm of physical possibility.
They specifically didn't add narrative explanation for this feat so that you could fill in the blank. That way it is universal to whatever character concept you're trying to work it into.
Not true. They gave a narrative description of practice and art. They described crushing with a choice of words indicating being squeezed between sides. If you want to homebrew that into something like "You are empowered with the capacity for launching ...", do as you like.
Keeping to things that make sense, at least to the extent of internal logic, is certainly one of my goals.
I think it's a stretch to say that a RAW text that otherwise states direction, permits a medium creature that can't jump over 1 ft to knock a large creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick.
I certainly doubt it's RAI.
We can still wait for the devs to comment.
They have already commented that a 8 STR open hand monk can push a creature up so I think they would likely say this is fine too but alas they haven't commented.
I'd likely think that, without an explanation like The Magic of Ki, they'd stick with the RAW direction prescribed by Crusher, "to an unoccupied space".
You still haven't answered my question: "How is an unoccupied space not a space that a creature can occupy?"
If you want to say that I homebrew the existence of checks notes the direction up, and down. Sure. You know what, yah. I invented those concepts. No one knew them before I, Ravnodaus, homebrewed the directions: up and down.
Of course, and 5e has its RAW contents on jumping, climbing, swimming and flying.
None of that changes the RAW definition of a 5e space as an area.
That is the definition of a creature's space. I've said this like 5 times now. Please accept that what you're saying is wrong. That very literally starts off saying "A creature's space is..."
it defines a Creature's Space. NOT an unoccupied space. In fact, the word "unoccupied" doesn't appear in that section of the rules even a single time. Not once.
An interpretation of crusher that says you might practice or art your way to knock ogres 5 ft off the ground remains inexplicable and out of step with its parallel feats, piercer and slasher.
Nothing says this has to be mundane. it can be as spectacular and as supernatural as you'd like it to be. If the only thing that can explain someone can move a larger creature around, in your mind, is something mystical... then call Crusher mystical. Some feats involve magic, maybe this one does too in your world. ...
Sure, and if you'd like to homebrew some spectacular or supernatural explanation to make sense of your interpretation of the feat you are perfectly at liberty to do so.
We already knew that, I didn't need your permission but thanks for giving it anyway. The point: You being unable to come up with a narrative description for how the feat works doesn't mean the feat isn't RAW. It is printed in the books and the author's have explained their rationale for creating it. If you don't like it simply ban it from your games and move on.
Maybe the devs will come up with some similarly magical explanation for crusher but I suspect they'll leave it with the realm of physical possibility.
They specifically didn't add narrative explanation for this feat so that you could fill in the blank. That way it is universal to whatever character concept you're trying to work it into.
Not true. They gave a narrative description of practice and art. They described crushing with a choice of words indicating being squeezed between sides. If you want to homebrew that into something like "You are empowered with the capacity for launching ...", do as you like.
"This is one of those cases where it is intended to be as generous as the wording implies, where it says you know if, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage you get this benefit. So, if you hit somebody with an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage you get this benefit. And that's very intentional. The only, basically the only requirement you have to meet, for like I'm looking at the crusher feat for that second bullet, is (1) you have to hit a creature (2) with an attack (3) that deals bludgeoning damage. Full Stop. So that could be a spell, that could your fist, it could be a club, it cold be a table leg. Any of those things would work with this."
End quote.
This feat doesn't have the requirements you think it does nor was it intended to have them.
"This is one of those cases where it is intended to be as generous as the wording implies, where it says you know if, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage you get this benefit. So, if you hit somebody with an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage you get this benefit. And that's very intentional. The only, basically the only requirement you have to meet, for like I'm looking at the crusher feat for that second bullet, is (1) you have to hit a creature (2) with an attack (3) that deals bludgeoning damage. Full Stop. So that could be a spell, that could your fist, it could be a club, it cold be a table leg. Any of those things would work with this."
End quote.
This feat doesn't have the requirements you think it does nor was it intended to have them.
You are taking that quote out of context. He is referring to it applying to any source, which is not the same as intending to apply in full in any way the player wants no matter how little it actually relates to the source.
The only, basically the only requirement you have to meet, for like I'm looking at the crusher feat for that second bullet, is (1) you have to hit a creature (2) with an attack (3) that deals bludgeoning damage. Full Stop.
It is unambiguous. Do you think he misspoke? There is no description explanation for how the crusher feat moves someone around in the wording of the text. You fill in the blank. The only requirements he expresses are 1. hit. 2. attack. 3. bludgeoning.
They specifically didn't add narrative explanation for this feat so that you could fill in the blank. That way it is universal to whatever character concept you're trying to work it into.
Not true. They gave a narrative description of practice and art. They described crushing with a choice of words indicating being squeezed between sides. If you want to homebrew that into something like "You are empowered with the capacity for launching ...", do as you like.
"This is one of those cases where it is intended to be as generous as the wording implies, where it says you know if, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage you get this benefit. So, if you hit somebody with an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage you get this benefit. And that's very intentional. The only, basically the only requirement you have to meet, for like I'm looking at the crusher feat for that second bullet, is (1) you have to hit a creature (2) with an attack (3) that deals bludgeoning damage. Full Stop. So that could be a spell, that could your fist, it could be a club, it cold be a table leg. Any of those things would work with this."
End quote.
This feat doesn't have the requirements you think it does nor was it intended to have them.
@Ravnodaus you have avidly followed this thread and well know that I dealt with this here.
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."
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."
You start your quote "This is one of those cases..." and yet fail to make reference to what is being referred to.
Sage advice advocates studying in context yet you consistently want to isolate texts.
The "further context" in no way states that there is a limit on which direction the target can be moved. Until you can cite a rule, errata, Sage Advice, or even a dev tweet, that says the direction is limited, all of your arguments boil down to "But I don't like that answer." Which is fine at your table, but not relevant in a RAW/RAI discussion, which is what this forum is about.
I like a straightforward and in context interpretation of RAW which takes into account the RAW movement and position,combat definition of space as an area to interpret direction as specified in the Crusher as simply being to an unoccupied space/area.
Some further RAI context of a feat, as having been made achievable by becoming practised in a combat art, can also refer to Crawford saying from 28:10 that "... 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."
If you want to homebrew this into something like "You are empowered with the capacity for launching ...", do as you like, but that neither fits with an in-context interpretation of raw nor a logical analysis of RAI.
I like a straightforward and in context interpretation of RAW which takes into account the RAW movement and position,combat definition of space as an area to interpret direction as specified in the Crusher as simply being to an unoccupied space/area.
Some further RAI context of a feat, as having been made achievable by becoming practised in a combat art, can also refer to Crawford saying from 28:10 that "... 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."
If you want to homebrew this into something like "You are empowered with the capacity for launching ...", do as you like, but that neither fits with an in-context interpretation of raw nor a logical analysis of RAI.
There is still no homebrew required to move the target vertically with Crusher. The feat states the target can be moved 5', & it doesn't limit the direction. There is no interpretation there. Just the rules as written. You have yet to cite a rule or anything official that limits the direction of that movement. Stating what you like doesn't change RAW or RAI. Believing that vertical movement is or isn't straightforward or in context doesn't change RAW or RAI. Repeatedly linking to parts of the rulebook that aren't relevant to Crusher doesn't change RAW or RAI. If you believe something in one of those links is relevant, then you should cite which part directly, rather than expecting other people to hunt around for them & decide on thier own which part(s) you are using.
Also, hurled just means thrown. People hurl things vertically all the time. Check out a video on volleyball serves, or juggling.
I like a straightforward and in context interpretation of RAW which takes into account the RAW movement and position,combat definition of space as an area to interpret direction as specified in the Crusher as simply being to an unoccupied space/area.
Some further RAI context of a feat, as having been made achievable by becoming practised in a combat art, can also refer to Crawford saying from 28:10 that "... 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."
If you want to homebrew this into something like "You are empowered with the capacity for launching ...", do as you like, but that neither fits with an in-context interpretation of raw nor a logical analysis of RAI.
There is still no homebrew required to move the target vertically with Crusher. The feat states the target can be moved 5', & it doesn't limit the direction. There is no interpretation there. Just the rules as written. You have yet to cite a rule or anything official that limits the direction of that movement. Stating what you like doesn't change RAW or RAI. Believing that vertical movement is or isn't straightforward or in context doesn't change RAW or RAI. Repeatedly linking to parts of the rulebook that aren't relevant to Crusher doesn't change RAW or RAI. If you believe something in one of those links is relevant, then you should cite which part directly, rather than expecting other people to hunt around for them & decide on thier own which part(s) you are using.
Also, hurled just means thrown. People hurl things vertically all the time. Check out a video on volleyball serves, or juggling.
You certainly can't move the target vertically with crusher.
"Two brawlers start fighting. The one with the crusher feat hoists a mighty fist to crack straight upwards underneath her opponent's chin. It's a devastating blow and yet, according to the crusher feat, it would not fit with crusher.
The crusher feat says, "... when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" but, in this case, the attack is vertical so that the target creature would always stay within the same area/space. Your interpretation, which devs have not confirmed, says the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical?! It makes no sense."
I like a straightforward and in context interpretation of RAW which takes into account the RAW movement and position,combat definition of space as an area to interpret direction as specified in the Crusher as simply being to an unoccupied space/area.
Some further RAI context of a feat, as having been made achievable by becoming practised in a combat art, can also refer to Crawford saying from 28:10 that "... 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."
If you want to homebrew this into something like "You are empowered with the capacity for launching ...", do as you like, but that neither fits with an in-context interpretation of raw nor a logical analysis of RAI.
There is still no homebrew required to move the target vertically with Crusher. The feat states the target can be moved 5', & it doesn't limit the direction. There is no interpretation there. Just the rules as written. You have yet to cite a rule or anything official that limits the direction of that movement. Stating what you like doesn't change RAW or RAI. Believing that vertical movement is or isn't straightforward or in context doesn't change RAW or RAI. Repeatedly linking to parts of the rulebook that aren't relevant to Crusher doesn't change RAW or RAI. If you believe something in one of those links is relevant, then you should cite which part directly, rather than expecting other people to hunt around for them & decide on thier own which part(s) you are using.
Also, hurled just means thrown. People hurl things vertically all the time. Check out a video on volleyball serves, or juggling.
You certainly can't move the target vertically with crusher.
"Two brawlers start fighting. The one with the crusher feat hoists a mighty fist to crack straight upwards underneath her opponent's chin. It's a devastating blow and yet, according to the crusher feat, it would not fit with crusher.
The crusher feat says, "... when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" but, in this case, the attack is vertical so that the target creature would always stay within the same area/space. Your interpretation, which devs have not confirmed, says the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical?! It makes no sense."
Is the space above him occupied or is it unoccupied? If it is occupied, maybe a low hanging ceiling, then yeah, of course you can't punch him through the roof. Otherwise, sure, you can pop him up 5ft into that unoccupied space, EZ.
PS. Please don't tell me this whole 'misunderstanding' stems from you thinking that a creature occupies a space for infinity height or something. There is an area, a 'space' ... you know, 'above' them.
You certainly can't move the target vertically with crusher.
"Two brawlers start fighting. The one with the crusher feat hoists a mighty fist to crack straight upwards underneath her opponent's chin. It's a devastating blow and yet, according to the crusher feat, it would not fit with crusher.
The crusher feat says, "... when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" but, in this case, the attack is vertical so that the target creature would always stay within the same area/space. Your interpretation, which devs have not confirmed, says the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical?! It makes no sense."
You certainly can move the target vertically with Crusher. The feat states you can move them 5', and doesn't limit the direction of that movement.
According to Crusher it would fit, because normal unarmed attacks deal blunt damage, and your example didn't state that the space 5' up was occupied or that the target was more than 1 size larger than the attacker.
Again, people don't usually confirm what they have spent years writing, editing, & reviewing. But since you brought it up, they also have not confirmed that it does not include vertical movement. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you, the RAW state 5' of movement, and has no limit on the direction of that movement. There is no interpretation on my side. It's a direct, literal reading of the text.
Again, this is a rules discussion, not a "What makes sense to GergKyae" discussion. Cite rules, not your beliefs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They have already commented that a 8 STR open hand monk can push a creature up so I think they would likely say this is fine too but alas they haven't commented.
Strength is not a requirement for the crusher feat. We know their intent is going to be that you can move the target even if you have a 8 Str. All you need to do is deal bludgeoning damage, and for them to not be more than 1 size larger than you.
I'm probably laughing.
I'd likely think that, without an explanation like The Magic of Ki, they'd stick with the RAW direction prescribed by Crusher, "to an unoccupied space".
An interpretation of crusher that says you might practice or art your way to knock ogres 5 ft off the ground remains inexplicable and out of step with its parallel feats, piercer and slasher.
Maybe the devs will come up with some similarly magical explanation for crusher but I suspect they'll leave it with the realm of physical possibility.
Unoccupied spaces have vertical axis. Up and down exist.
Nothing says this has to be mundane. it can be as spectacular and as supernatural as you'd like it to be. If the only thing that can explain someone can move a larger creature around, in your mind, is something mystical... then call Crusher mystical. Some feats involve magic, maybe this one does too in your world.
They specifically didn't add narrative explanation for this feat so that you could fill in the blank. That way it is universal to whatever character concept you're trying to work it into.
I'm probably laughing.
Internal logic?
A halfling with the sentinel feat can stop a charging tarrasque in its tracks.
Someone with the chef feat can make food that heals injuries.
Its fairly easy to build a monk that can break the sound barrier.
Most characters, fairly early in their career, can fall off a 100 foot cliff, and then just get up and walk away.
It's a game, it doesn't attempt to simulate physics or reality.
But its the feat that matters here. A 9 str doesn't let you knock someone around, the crusher feat does. A feat represents intensive specialization that lets you do something that few other people can do. Considering the very small part of the population that ever gets any feats, its incredibly rare, and its one of the things that sets PCs apart from commoners. So someone with this feat has worked at being able to do it, and now they can.
And practically, the whole argument is a straw man. No one with a 9 str would ever take this feat. If you have a 9 str, you are not walking up and punching people. You're either a caster, who isn't going to spend their feats on something they'd never use. Or you're a dex-based martial, and no bludgeoning weapons have the finesse property. The only option which might take it is a monk, which, if anyone is going to punch someone hard enough to move them, its a monk. So you're arguing about a problem that does not exist.
That's your homebrew.
5e d&d rules on movement and position in combat, a space is defined as an area.
You still haven't answered my question: "How is an unoccupied space not a space that a creature can occupy?"
Of course, and 5e has its RAW contents on jumping, climbing, swimming and flying.
None of that changes the RAW definition of a 5e space as an area.
Sure, and if you'd like to homebrew some spectacular or supernatural explanation to make sense of your interpretation of the feat you are perfectly at liberty to do so.
Not true. They gave a narrative description of practice and art. They described crushing with a choice of words indicating being squeezed between sides.
If you want to homebrew that into something like "You are empowered with the capacity for launching ...", do as you like.
If you want to say that I homebrew the existence of checks notes the direction up, and down. Sure. You know what, yah. I invented those concepts. No one knew them before I, Ravnodaus, homebrewed the directions: up and down.
Yall welcome.
That is the definition of a creature's space. I've said this like 5 times now. Please accept that what you're saying is wrong. That very literally starts off saying "A creature's space is..."
it defines a Creature's Space. NOT an unoccupied space. In fact, the word "unoccupied" doesn't appear in that section of the rules even a single time. Not once.
We already knew that, I didn't need your permission but thanks for giving it anyway. The point: You being unable to come up with a narrative description for how the feat works doesn't mean the feat isn't RAW. It is printed in the books and the author's have explained their rationale for creating it. If you don't like it simply ban it from your games and move on.
JC Interview on this feat. He says, quote:
"This is one of those cases where it is intended to be as generous as the wording implies, where it says you know if, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage you get this benefit. So, if you hit somebody with an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage you get this benefit. And that's very intentional. The only, basically the only requirement you have to meet, for like I'm looking at the crusher feat for that second bullet, is (1) you have to hit a creature (2) with an attack (3) that deals bludgeoning damage. Full Stop. So that could be a spell, that could your fist, it could be a club, it cold be a table leg. Any of those things would work with this."
End quote.
This feat doesn't have the requirements you think it does nor was it intended to have them.
I'm probably laughing.
The only, basically the only requirement you have to meet, for like I'm looking at the crusher feat for that second bullet, is (1) you have to hit a creature (2) with an attack (3) that deals bludgeoning damage. Full Stop.
It is unambiguous. Do you think he misspoke? There is no description explanation for how the crusher feat moves someone around in the wording of the text. You fill in the blank. The only requirements he expresses are 1. hit. 2. attack. 3. bludgeoning.
I'm probably laughing.
@Ravnodaus you have avidly followed this thread and well know that I dealt with this here.
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."
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."
You start your quote "This is one of those cases..." and yet fail to make reference to what is being referred to.
Sage advice advocates studying in context yet you consistently want to isolate texts.
The "further context" in no way states that there is a limit on which direction the target can be moved. Until you can cite a rule, errata, Sage Advice, or even a dev tweet, that says the direction is limited, all of your arguments boil down to "But I don't like that answer." Which is fine at your table, but not relevant in a RAW/RAI discussion, which is what this forum is about.
I like a straightforward and in context interpretation of RAW which takes into account the RAW movement and position, combat definition of space as an area to interpret direction as specified in the Crusher as simply being to an unoccupied space/area.
Some further RAI context of a feat, as having been made achievable by becoming practised in a combat art, can also refer to Crawford saying from 28:10 that "... 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."
If you want to homebrew this into something like "You are empowered with the capacity for launching ...", do as you like, but that neither fits with an in-context interpretation of raw nor a logical analysis of RAI.
There is still no homebrew required to move the target vertically with Crusher. The feat states the target can be moved 5', & it doesn't limit the direction. There is no interpretation there. Just the rules as written. You have yet to cite a rule or anything official that limits the direction of that movement. Stating what you like doesn't change RAW or RAI. Believing that vertical movement is or isn't straightforward or in context doesn't change RAW or RAI. Repeatedly linking to parts of the rulebook that aren't relevant to Crusher doesn't change RAW or RAI. If you believe something in one of those links is relevant, then you should cite which part directly, rather than expecting other people to hunt around for them & decide on thier own which part(s) you are using.
Also, hurled just means thrown. People hurl things vertically all the time. Check out a video on volleyball serves, or juggling.
You certainly can't move the target vertically with crusher.
"Two brawlers start fighting. The one with the crusher feat hoists a mighty fist to crack straight upwards underneath her opponent's chin. It's a devastating blow and yet, according to the crusher feat, it would not fit with crusher.
The crusher feat says, "... when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space" but, in this case, the attack is vertical so that the target creature would always stay within the same area/space. Your interpretation, which devs have not confirmed, says the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical?! It makes no sense."
Is the space above him occupied or is it unoccupied? If it is occupied, maybe a low hanging ceiling, then yeah, of course you can't punch him through the roof. Otherwise, sure, you can pop him up 5ft into that unoccupied space, EZ.
PS. Please don't tell me this whole 'misunderstanding' stems from you thinking that a creature occupies a space for infinity height or something. There is an area, a 'space' ... you know, 'above' them.
I'm probably laughing.
You certainly can move the target vertically with Crusher. The feat states you can move them 5', and doesn't limit the direction of that movement.
According to Crusher it would fit, because normal unarmed attacks deal blunt damage, and your example didn't state that the space 5' up was occupied or that the target was more than 1 size larger than the attacker.
Again, people don't usually confirm what they have spent years writing, editing, & reviewing. But since you brought it up, they also have not confirmed that it does not include vertical movement. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you, the RAW state 5' of movement, and has no limit on the direction of that movement. There is no interpretation on my side. It's a direct, literal reading of the text.
Again, this is a rules discussion, not a "What makes sense to GergKyae" discussion. Cite rules, not your beliefs.