Lastly, calling someone a "rule lawyer' or bad DM for not allowing this combo is snarky and unnecessary.
There are a number of responders here who clearly indicated that they don't like the combo and so are looking for ways to shut it down. That's not how rules work. That is how rules lawyering works. When you try to force the rules to spit out your preferred interpretation.
And, a huge distinction was made that you're ignoring there. You're not a bad DM if you don't allow this combo. That's silly. You're a bad DM if you don't allow this combo specifically to hamstring the guy who showed up with this character in mind. Intention matters.
You can rule whatever you wanna rule, but if you're making a ruling to 'break a player's toy' so to speak, then you've crossed a line. That is adversarial behavior. It is bad. Now... that's obviously opinion, sure, so maybe unnecessary, but certainly not snarky.
Many DM's would consider that kind of rhetoric to be crossing a line as well, though. If you want all rulings to go your way, run your own campaign as a DM.
Condemning a DM over a single ruling you disagree with? That is being rather quick to draw lines in the sand.
I was going to repeat myself a third time but realized if you wanted to know what I meant you'd not be asking this question. The answer is above, if you care to find it.
If that was the only meaningful chance the party had to win a battle, fair enough, but that is so exceedingly unlikely. Saying no to one specific tactic is not 'hamstringing.' Hyperbolic rhetoric is not good argument.
If you're only replying because you don't like my word choice there might be more productive uses of your time.
Adversarial relationships between a DM and their players is bad. Objectively. There is no reason to disagree with this.
DMG Chapter 1:A World of Your Own Your world is the setting for your campaign, the place where adventures happen. Even if you use an existing setting, such as the Forgotten Realms, it becomes yours as you set your adventures there, create characters to inhabit it, and make changes to it over the course of your campaign. This chapter is all about building your world and then creating a campaign to take place in it.
If that was the only meaningful chance the party had to win a battle, fair enough, but that is so exceedingly unlikely. Saying no to one specific tactic is not 'hamstringing.' Hyperbolic rhetoric is not good argument.
If you're only replying because you don't like my word choice there might be more productive uses of your time.
Adversarial relationships between a DM and their players is bad. Objectively. There is no reason to disagree with this.
You are putting forward the argument that if the DM disagrees with the player on anything, the DM is therefore being 'adversarial.'
I am not. I've been very clear. Being an Adversarial DM is bad. That's just true. But DMs disagree with players all the time. That's normal and fine. I've said as much. I've repeated myself. Your insistence that I'm making this fictional argument is absolutely silly.
You do realize that is itself an adversarial position for you to take, right?
You have taken an adversarial tone, I've noticed. But you are arguing with a fictional ghost of your own making. I have not said what you accuse me of saying. Carry on fighting the good fight with specters, though.
If the Crusher feat is used properly, by attacking a creature of appropriate size and dealing bludgeoning damage, it can move a creature in 5 feet any direction so long as the space is unoccupied. Up, down, left, right, and any diagonal direction. That’s RAW.
If you don’t like the flavor, you’re free to disallow the feat.
If you are having issues visualizing how it works, you’re free to disallow the feat.
But don’t try to hide behind a deliberate misinterpretation of the rules to prevent mechanics being used that aren’t nearly as powerful as you think they are. You shouldn’t be nerfing the feature because of some stupid combo like this that frankly isn’t worth the investment to be able to do in the first place.
there are many more methods available to cause an extra 1d6 fall damage while proning a single creature.
If the Crusher feat is used properly, by attacking a creature of appropriate size and dealing bludgeoning damage, it can move a creature in 5 feet any direction so long as the space is unoccupied. Up, down, left, right, and any diagonal direction. That’s RAW.
If you don’t like the flavor, you’re free to disallow the feat.
If you are having issues visualizing how it works, you’re free to disallow the feat.
But don’t try to hide behind a deliberate misinterpretation of the rules to prevent mechanics being used that aren’t nearly as powerful as you think they are. You shouldn’t be nerfing the feature because of some stupid combo like this that frankly isn’t worth the investment to be able to do in the first place.
there are many more methods available to cause an extra 1d6 fall damage while proning a single creature.
Thank you, I will, but please don't patronise by pretending fancifully that it's because we're having issues visualizing how it works. I just think it's just another bit of WotC, badly worded BS and that it doesn't work.
But, even then, if you were to move someone to a space that is occupied by a creature below, I think that, upon falling, the creature already there could rightly say, "that creature was moved into my space". Similarly, I don't think that you can magically add the wording "of your choosing" in reference to a mentioned unoccupied space. It's an unoccupied space into which a DM thinks a creature might logically and practicably have been hit.
But if you want to talk of RAW - RAW, the crusher feat could also be used with any tiny stone if it's propelled with a sling or even just thrown. RAW, that tiny stone could move a creature one size larger than you back or, by your reconning, in any direction to a distance of 5 ft. RAW, a critical hit scored with that tiny stone would mean that all attack rolls against that creature would be made with advantage until the start of your next turn. I'd personally call BS on this too, not because I can't visualise it, but because I see it as BS.
I just think it's just another bit of WotC, badly worded BS and that it doesn't work.
No. Please don't insult the authors like that. I understand critiquing a specific passage, go for it, we all do. But you're insulting the authors there and you really shouldn't.
But, even then, if you were to move someone to a space that is occupied by a creature below, I think that, upon falling, the creature already there could rightly say, "that creature was moved into my space". Similarly, I don't think that you can magically add the wording "of your choosing" in reference to a mentioned unoccupied space. It's an unoccupied space into which a DM thinks a creature might logically and practicably have been hit.
Anyway, crusher allows you to move someone 5ft. You can disagree if it should or not, game design, intent, complete entry etc all you want. But currently, RAW, you can move someone 5ft with the feat. Any direction. So long as the space is unoccupied.
But if you want to talk of RAW - RAW, the crusher feat could also be used with any tiny stone if it's propelled with a sling or even just thrown. RAW, that tiny stone could move a creature one size larger than you back or, by your reconning, in any direction to a distance of 5 ft. RAW, a critical hit scored with that tiny stone would mean that all attack rolls against that creature would be made with advantage until the start of your next turn. I'd personally call BS on this too, not because I can't visualise it, but because I see it as BS.
Yikes. Never hear of David vs Goliath? Have ever seen historical accounts of what a sling could do to someone?? One shot one kill. "tiny stone" flung at incredible speeds can impact with a lot of force. Anyway, realism aside, I'm glad you seem to agree that RAW crusher moves someone 5ft and that's really all there is to it. If you're looking for ideas how to homebrew it to work differently I'd suggest opening a new topic in the Homebrew forum.
The context in which some people are using the term RAW is adding a lot of confusion.
RAW refers to the black and white rules in the core books. It is the common framework we all use. However, just like our laws, DND rules are often unclear or incomplete. A DM is the judge that decides on how to interpret the rules. Some rules are very clear, such as dagger doing 1d4 damage, no interpretation should be needed. Now the DM, also happens to be the legislative body. If he wants the dagger to do 1d6 he can change the rule (i.e. homebrew).
The crusher feat states "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". RAW this rule is very much subject to interpretation. Some DMs can interpret it to mean "any horizontal or vertical unoccupied space within 5 feet" while another may interpret it to mean "any horizontal space". These interpretations are rulings. A DM is not changing what is RAW but simply deciding what's best for their game. The crusher feat does not say "Up, down, left, right, and any diagonal direction." To say that RAW you can move someone up with crusher is not accurate. What is accurate is to say that "RAW the rules of crusher do not prevent you from knocking someone upward." If you want to know whether or not crusher can move someone up in the air then ask your DM for a ruling.
DND rules are not written in any sort of legalese which is intentional. A common phrase from the developers of 5e is "rulings over rules". DM is suppose to use his common sense and decide what is allowed and what is not. To many a telekinesis crusher combo feel like a video game but others may like it. Neither is wrong. Denying this combo does not make one an adversarial or a bad DM. A DM will make this call based on what is best for his game and his/her players. It is his/her responsibility to make this ruling.
The crusher feat states "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space".
Yep
RAW this rule is very much subject to interpretation.
Uh, no. It is black and white. You CAN move it. Permission is granted. Full stop.
Some DMs can interpret it to mean "any horizontal or vertical unoccupied space within 5 feet" while another may interpret it to mean "any horizontal space". These interpretations are rulings.
A DM can change anything they want. Yes.
A DM is not changing what is RAW but simply deciding what's best for their game.
They absolutely are. If it goes against the black and white rules text on the page. This can be a good thing, of course. Homebrew is awesome. But if you're changing the rules from what is printed that isn't RAW. You can decide non-RAW is what's best for your game. That is great! Just because you decide it is best for your game does not make it RAW. RAWis Rules As Written.
The crusher feat does not say "Up, down, left, right, and any diagonal direction." To say that RAW you can move someone up with crusher is not accurate.
It is accurate. By RAW you can move them 5ft into an unoccupied space. If up is unoccupied it meets that very clearly defined criteria. Objectively does. There is no subjectivity here.
What is accurate is to say that "RAW the rules of crusher do not prevent you from knocking someone upward."
The feat grants you permission. You "can" move... this is permission granting text. RAW it says you can do it.
If you want to know whether or not crusher can move someone up in the air then ask your DM for a ruling.
DMs can homebrew anything. If you wanna know if a dagger deals a d4 ask your DM.
DND rules are not written in any sort of legalese which is intentional. A common phrase from the developers of 5e is "rulings over rules". DM is suppose to use his common sense and decide what is allowed and what is not.
DMs are free to deviate from RAW at any time and for any reason, correct.
To many a telekinesis crusher combo feel like a video game but others may like it. Neither is wrong.
One is RAW the other is homebrew. Neither are wrong.
But if you want to talk of RAW - RAW, the crusher feat could also be used with any tiny stone if it's propelled with a sling or even just thrown. RAW, that tiny stone could move a creature one size larger than you back or, by your reconning, in any direction to a distance of 5 ft. RAW, a critical hit scored with that tiny stone would mean that all attack rolls against that creature would be made with advantage until the start of your next turn. I'd personally call BS on this too, not because I can't visualise it, but because I see it as BS.
Yes, there are no famous examples ever of a person launching a sling stone at a larger enemy and causing significant problems for them
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I just think it's just another bit of WotC, badly worded BS and that it doesn't work.
No. Please don't insult the authors like that. I understand critiquing a specific passage, go for it, we all do. But you're insulting the authors there and you really shouldn't.
I can critique a number of specific passages as bits of WotC, badly worded BS and view this to be another of them - and that it doesn't work.
RAW, you can move someone 5ft with the feat. Any direction.
No, it just says that, "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, ..." Decisions of reasonable possibilities for direction are dependent on the DM.
Lol. Admittedly I've less direct evidence here but I still suspect BS.
In any case, if goliath had been a d&d fighter of at least 1st level, he could easily have survived the 1d4 damage of a slingshot attack. I certainly don't think that Goliath could then have been moved in any direction.
Crusher, like all feats, is an optional rule. If you don’t like what it does, I highly suggest you let your players know beforehand so that they don’t waste a feat choice based on your biases against the way it was intentionally written to work.
no one here is arguing over what the all powerful DM can do when running the game. It’s a cop out to lean on that anyways, especially in the rules and game mechanics forum. Doesn’t serve much purpose about rules inquiry to say a DM can do W/E and it doesn’t matter.
A sling with a stone is actually if comparative stopping power to a mildly loaded .357 magnum cartridge out of a revolver. The worlds longest arrow shot is 930ft( by a man with no arms…) while the longest sling stone shot is 1434ft. Slings are much more powerful and difficult to use per shot and training required to use effectively.
I doubt realism actually matters in any way in regard to this conversation. The mechanics do what they say they do. It’s up to us to figure out how that works. So how about we say the stone from the sling was expertly aimed at the creatures legs or feet, and the pain caused them to jump up in w/e direction we choose.
GergKaye stated it perfectly, "Decisions of reasonable possibilities for direction are dependent on the DM." This is not bias. If crusher was meant to launch people in the air it could have stated it that way. It is not accurate to claim the intent of Crusher is to move people up and down. Crusher could have said something such as "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space in any horizontal or vertical direction of your choosing." The designers wisely choose to leave the specifics to the DM rather than make the details of the movement RAW.
If you want to combine feats and do something not explicitly called for in the rules as written then I highly suggest you chat with your DM before making your selections. Many DMs will utilize realism in part of their decision.
I just think it's just another bit of WotC, badly worded BS and that it doesn't work.
No. Please don't insult the authors like that. I understand critiquing a specific passage, go for it, we all do. But you're insulting the authors there and you really shouldn't.
I can critique a number of specific passages as bits of WotC, badly worded BS and view this to be another of them - and that it doesn't work.
RAW, you can move someone 5ft with the feat. Any direction.
No, it just says that, "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, ..." Decisions of reasonable possibilities for direction are dependent on the DM.
Lol. Admittedly I've less direct evidence here but I still suspect BS.
In any case, if goliath had been a d&d fighter of at least 1st level, he could easily have survived the 1d4 damage of a slingshot attack. I certainly don't think that Goliath could then have been moved in any direction.
Slings are actually underrated in D&D compared to the force they can direct IRL. However, even in D&D, David could have theoretically been 20 dex, so plus 5 damage. On a crit, that could have managed 4 x 2 + 5 = 13 damage. If David was a variant Human, sharpshooter, so add 10 to that. 23. That would have felled any 1st level fighter and perhaps some 2nd or 3rd levels. And that is without Crusher.
Plus, math aside, David did allegedly have a deity on his side, i.e. direct divine intervention, so all bets were off.
Add some of that divine intervention and David could have used a magic stone for an extra d6 + spellcasting modifier. Add some celestial homebrew and it could prove that smite can be used with ranged weapons.
The thread relevant argument here is whether a sling stone (a very tiny object) flung by a medium creature can move a creature one size larger, that's twice as big in all three dimensions, that's eight times the weight.
Sure, if a creature is sentient they might be shocked by any hard-hitting blow and real back from the shock. But if we just looked at the physics of a really small thing (even if flung by a 20 dex fighter) hitting a really big target, such as if an ooze, a plant or a zombie was hit, I just don't see that it would move very far. It's not like they've been hit by a Maul.
On the topic of mauls, if a character with the crusher feat used one to hit a creature of eight times their weight, I can still imagine them being knocked 5 feet back - but being knocked 5 feet off the ground? That's the stuff of cartoons and special effects movies, not physics.
Some DMs may buy into this which is all fair enough - but none of that can prevent another DM from fairly calling BS.
GergKaye stated it perfectly, "Decisions of reasonable possibilities for direction are dependent on the DM." This is not bias. If crusher was meant to launch people in the air it could have stated it that way.
It does. Unoccupied space, within 5'.
It is not accurate to claim the intent of Crusher is to move people up and down.
Claims of intent are inherently suspicious without supporting quotes by authors. Unless otherwise supported by evidence, intent is what is RAW. You're free to believe and rule otherwise at your tables.
Crusher could have said something such as "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space in any horizontal or vertical direction of your choosing." The designers wisely choose to leave the specifics to the DM rather than make the details of the movement RAW.
No one who has ever written anything professionally would ever add 9 whole extra words that add zero to the meaning. What you wrote is longer without meaning anything more than what they wrote. There are people, called editors, whose entire job is clipping off the 9 whole words you'd add.
If you want to combine feats and do something not explicitly called for in the rules as written then I highly suggest you chat with your DM before making your selections. Many DMs will utilize realism in part of their decision.
5' up is RAW.
Look, I get it, you hate that it is RAW. Change it at your table. But you hating it doesn't make it not-RAW.
Plus, math aside, David did allegedly have a deity on his side, i.e. direct divine intervention, so all bets were off.
We don't always see eye to eye, Kotath, but even I gotta admit sometimes you're spittin' fire!
The thread relevant argument here is whether a sling stone (a very tiny object) flung by a medium creature can move a creature one size larger, that's twice as big in all three dimensions, that's eight times the weight.
GregKyae, can I call you Gregory? Greg, what is relevant is a sling can impart more force than you give it credit for. Honestly most humans in 5e have like maybe 4 HP. A sling can easily one shot people. Accurate? Easily one shot em. A goliath commoner is still, what, a 5 hp creature that can 1/day reduce damage. Roll a 1 on that roll and sling could easily still 1 shot em, Gregykae.
The amount of realism we let into our D&D game is going to vary from table to table. Some games are basically anime, others are ye ol' reality simulator v1.3. RAW, when it is written permissively, is giving you RAW permission to do something. Can a DM say no to RAW permission? Of course. That is called homebrew and it is an absolutely valid and legit way to play.
Sure, if a creature is sentient they might be shocked by any hard-hitting blow and real back from the shock. But if we just looked at the physics of a really small thing (even if flung by a 20 dex fighter) hitting a really big target, such as if an ooze, a plant or a zombie was hit, I just don't see that it would move very far. It's not like they've been hit by a Maul.
If you did some force calculations you might be surprised by the results Gregeaky. A Maul and a Sling aren't going to be all that much different. Not enough to say one can lift a potential 3k+ Lbs Large creature 5' off the ground and the other can't, anyway. Neither could you make much an argument that either of them could push a large creature laterally, horizontally, or otherwise 5 whole feet. Gregyeak, do you know how much force that would "realistically take"??
No one has time for that. Most of us don't even know the formulas for how to even calculate the force required. The game has no method for determining which characters can apply which amount of force or for how long, in what intervals, what sustained periods or peak intensity. We can't simulate reality here, my friend, Gregyaek. We have a simple choice. We can either follow the rules or decide not to. It is a game. A game with layers upon layers of abstraction. Realistic force calculation? Not so much.
On the topic of mauls, if a character with the crusher feat used one to hit a creature of eight times their weight, I can still imagine them being knocked 5 feet back - but being knocked 5 feet off the ground? That's the stuff of cartoons and special effects movies, not physics.
Yo welcome to D&D were there are dragons and magic spells.
Some DMs may buy into this which is all fair enough - but none of that can prevent another DM from fairly calling BS.
Any DM is welcome...nay, encouraged to deviate from RAW and to homebrew. Gregkyea, there is even an entire forum dedicated to exactly that.
GregKyae, can I call you Gregory? Greg, what is relevant is a sling can impart more force than you give it credit for. Honestly most humans in 5e have like maybe 4 HP. A sling can easily one shot people. Accurate? Easily one shot em. A goliath commoner is still, what, a 5 hp creature that can 1/day reduce damage. Roll a 1 on that roll and sling could easily still 1 shot em, Gregykae.
The amount of realism we let into our D&D game is going to vary from table to table. Some games are basically anime, others are ye ol' reality simulator v1.3. RAW, when it is written permissively, is giving you RAW permission to do something. Can a DM say no to RAW permission? Of course. That is called homebrew and it is an absolutely valid and legit way to play.
Want to correct you on something there. 'Goliath' was no mere commoner but a hero in his own right, so at least a 1st level fighter (or possibly barbarian) equivalent, quite possibly higher than 1st. While he could just have been a big guy whom the Philistines thought would intimidate the Israelites into surrendering, but he was put forward as their champion and was actually expected to fight the Israelite King Saul, but the King kept backing down so David stepped up to the challenge of his own accord.
Haha true true. I only meant to ground the reference scale by reminding folk that normal humans have 4hp. I'm sure mythological figure Goliath would have more, totally true.
Back on topic, I do actually agree with you that someone could be moved upwards in most cases, although there are exceptions. The shove ability says 'away from you' and up is not so much away as parallel. Telekinetic shove allows for towards or away, though so I would say 'up' is within the scope of that.
TK shove couldn't 'really' do up unless you were underneath them. What is tricky, TBH, is that on a combat grid you character isn't 'specifically' anywhere. They're only 'somewhere' in a grid/space. Generally, this means for points of origin you need to pick a corner or something. In the case of something like TK shove you could theoretically pick the bottom front-facing corner. That's as close to an 'up' push you could get to an adjacent creature.
That said, your repeated 'The rules are the rules' stance will not fly with most DM's. Again, the DM is the final interpreter of the rules for their campaign. I am curious what you think a DM should do if two players have different views on the rules making it literally impossible to accommodate them both?
People, I admit, are sometimes just... wrong. It happens more than I'd like but it's a fact about the world in which we live. Honestly? Not sure how else to answer that question. Two players who read the same text who come away with different understandings? One of them is probably just very wrong. Misread a word. Skimmed it. Assumed they already knew what it meant and didn't read it. Hard to say why. But one of them, maybe both, are wrong.
Regardless of if the two players can read RAW rules or not, the DM should just make a ruling. All rulings DMs make in good faith are the correct ruling. Even if they're not RAW.
Too much importance is put on 'playing it RAW' here, like some sort of religiosity test. RAW is something to be understood academically. But actual rulings are how it gets played in practice at the table. Two wholly difference and separate topics.
... Regardless of if the two players can read RAW rules or not, the DM should just make a ruling. All rulings DMs make in good faith are the correct ruling. Even if they're not RAW. ....
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.
Nothing is said about which unoccupied space can be involved or whether or not you can move someone up into the air. Many people looking at D&D maps may think of space in terms of a space on the map and yet nothing is specified.
..., "Decisions of reasonable possibilities for direction are dependent on the DM." This is not bias. If crusher was meant to launch people in the air it could have stated it that way. It is not accurate to claim the intent of Crusher is to move people up and down. Crusher could have said something such as "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space in any horizontal or vertical direction of your choosing." The designers wisely choose to leave the specifics to the DM rather than make the details of the movement RAW. ....
An interpretation that the feat can move an opponent off the ground would constitute a significant buff and I would have thought that, if this was RAI, it would have been RAW.
GregKyae, can I call you Gregory? Greg, what is relevant is a sling can impart more force than you give it credit for. Honestly most humans in 5e have like maybe 4 HP. A sling can easily one shot people. Accurate? Easily one shot em. A goliath commoner is still, what, a 5 hp creature that can 1/day reduce damage. Roll a 1 on that roll and sling could easily still 1 shot em, Gregykae.
It's Greg Kaye but gerg, a typically less used name as suited for logins, is fine. :D
Frankly, everything to do with the crusher feat is quite astounding and the more I think of it. It gets complicated.
I think that the size thing I mentioned earlier is likely erroneous and that size as medium, large, huge etc, don't necessarily correspond with weights.
Within the framework with WotC measurements, sizes get complicated. With one size larger from a medium creature, if we considered all dimensions, on average, to double, then the logical result would be that weight, on average, would increase by a factor of eight. With one size larger from a large creature (such as if you're a rune knight, a wild shaped druid or are the recipient of either an enlarge spell of a potion of growth), if a next size up caused dimensions generally go up an extra 50%, weight would then go up by a lesser factor of 3.375. (There's not a lot of consistency but why would there be? WotC uses an imperial measurements system that seems to have been first based on the lining up of barleycorns).
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.
Official weight information on monsters can be hard to come by which may seem strange when the spell levitate specifies "a target that weighs up to 500 pounds".
Anyway, your opponent can be bigger and heavier than you. Say your opponent is 8 times heavier. Logically, hitting with a force that could knock that opponent 5ft away from you could also knock you 40ft away from them ... but that don't happen. It could take some serious leaning in to knock a non-cooperative creature of the size of a horse 5 ft back. What would it take to lift it 5 feet off the ground?
I still have difficulty with the sling idea as, if you were sending something with that much force out horizontally, it would place an equal thrust back on you in equal measure. (If the stone was propelled to that proportional extent, we might even say it was delivering thunder damage, but that might be pushing it).
Playing RAW I more of an expectation because of smooth gameplay requirements. The RAW is the standard expectation of how players and the DM should expect to play the game. There’s no reason a group of 5 people who have agreed to play some DnD together should show up and have one of the players decide to change the rules, especially if those rules have a direct impact on the players character choices. The decision to change the rules is not necessarily bad, but it will have a ripple effect on the rest of the game.
if a DM wants to change how game mechanics works for the intent of a better game play experience, then that’s awesome.
nerfing a players feat choice arbitrarily does not make the game more fun.
if a DM wants to nerf a player characters feature it should should be talked about well before hand. A player only gets a handful of concrete choices in the game, the player should be notified if the changes we’ll beforehand si that they make change their concepts if necessary. Or maybe even choose not to play with that DM if they’re going to place stupid limitations on a PCs features.
the DM runs the game yes, but it can be difficult playing alone. Good thing they released sidekicks I suppose.
Playing RAW I more of an expectation because of smooth gameplay requirements. The RAW is the standard expectation of how players and the DM should expect to play the game. There’s no reason a group of 5 people who have agreed to play some DnD together should show up and have one of the players decide to change the rules, especially if those rules have a direct impact on the players character choices. The decision to change the rules is not necessarily bad, but it will have a ripple effect on the rest of the game.
if a DM wants to change how game mechanics works for the intent of a better game play experience, then that’s awesome.
nerfing a players feat choice arbitrarily does not make the game more fun.
if a DM wants to nerf a player characters feature it should should be talked about well before hand. A player only gets a handful of concrete choices in the game, the player should be notified if the changes we’ll beforehand si that they make change their concepts if necessary. Or maybe even choose not to play with that DM if they’re going to place stupid limitations on a PCs features.
the DM runs the game yes, but it can be difficult playing alone. Good thing they released sidekicks I suppose.
Playing RAW you cannot expect a huge buff to a feat with the stretched claim that you can knock a horse 5 ft in the air by hitting it with a stick.
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.
Playing RAW you cannot expect a huge buff to a feat with the stretched claim that you can knock a horse 5 ft in the air by hitting it with a stick.
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.
You can shove a pegasus 5 feet straight up, I don't see how it's a stretch for the same rules wording to result in Crusher being at least as good as Shove. You can also Shove Aside a horse straight up, but Shove Aside is a variant rule.
If you're only replying because you don't like my word choice there might be more productive uses of your time.
Adversarial relationships between a DM and their players is bad. Objectively. There is no reason to disagree with this.
I got quotes!
DMG Chapter 1:A World of Your Own
Your world is the setting for your campaign, the place where adventures happen. Even if you use an existing setting, such as the Forgotten Realms, it becomes yours as you set your adventures there, create characters to inhabit it, and make changes to it over the course of your campaign. This chapter is all about building your world and then creating a campaign to take place in it.
I am not. I've been very clear. Being an Adversarial DM is bad. That's just true. But DMs disagree with players all the time. That's normal and fine. I've said as much. I've repeated myself. Your insistence that I'm making this fictional argument is absolutely silly.
You have taken an adversarial tone, I've noticed. But you are arguing with a fictional ghost of your own making. I have not said what you accuse me of saying. Carry on fighting the good fight with specters, though.
I got quotes!
I'd think that, in many situations, a player that asked a DM for the same thing twice was being demanding.
If the Crusher feat is used properly, by attacking a creature of appropriate size and dealing bludgeoning damage, it can move a creature in 5 feet any direction so long as the space is unoccupied. Up, down, left, right, and any diagonal direction. That’s RAW.
If you don’t like the flavor, you’re free to disallow the feat.
If you are having issues visualizing how it works, you’re free to disallow the feat.
But don’t try to hide behind a deliberate misinterpretation of the rules to prevent mechanics being used that aren’t nearly as powerful as you think they are. You shouldn’t be nerfing the feature because of some stupid combo like this that frankly isn’t worth the investment to be able to do in the first place.
there are many more methods available to cause an extra 1d6 fall damage while proning a single creature.
Thank you, I will, but please don't patronise by pretending fancifully that it's because we're having issues visualizing how it works. I just think it's just another bit of WotC, badly worded BS and that it doesn't work.
But, even then, if you were to move someone to a space that is occupied by a creature below, I think that, upon falling, the creature already there could rightly say, "that creature was moved into my space". Similarly, I don't think that you can magically add the wording "of your choosing" in reference to a mentioned unoccupied space. It's an unoccupied space into which a DM thinks a creature might logically and practicably have been hit.
But if you want to talk of RAW - RAW, the crusher feat could also be used with any tiny stone if it's propelled with a sling or even just thrown. RAW, that tiny stone could move a creature one size larger than you back or, by your reconning, in any direction to a distance of 5 ft. RAW, a critical hit scored with that tiny stone would mean that all attack rolls against that creature would be made with advantage until the start of your next turn. I'd personally call BS on this too, not because I can't visualise it, but because I see it as BS.
No. Please don't insult the authors like that. I understand critiquing a specific passage, go for it, we all do. But you're insulting the authors there and you really shouldn't.
Anyway, crusher allows you to move someone 5ft. You can disagree if it should or not, game design, intent, complete entry etc all you want. But currently, RAW, you can move someone 5ft with the feat. Any direction. So long as the space is unoccupied.
Yikes. Never hear of David vs Goliath? Have ever seen historical accounts of what a sling could do to someone?? One shot one kill. "tiny stone" flung at incredible speeds can impact with a lot of force. Anyway, realism aside, I'm glad you seem to agree that RAW crusher moves someone 5ft and that's really all there is to it. If you're looking for ideas how to homebrew it to work differently I'd suggest opening a new topic in the Homebrew forum.
I got quotes!
The context in which some people are using the term RAW is adding a lot of confusion.
RAW refers to the black and white rules in the core books. It is the common framework we all use. However, just like our laws, DND rules are often unclear or incomplete. A DM is the judge that decides on how to interpret the rules. Some rules are very clear, such as dagger doing 1d4 damage, no interpretation should be needed. Now the DM, also happens to be the legislative body. If he wants the dagger to do 1d6 he can change the rule (i.e. homebrew).
The crusher feat states "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". RAW this rule is very much subject to interpretation. Some DMs can interpret it to mean "any horizontal or vertical unoccupied space within 5 feet" while another may interpret it to mean "any horizontal space". These interpretations are rulings. A DM is not changing what is RAW but simply deciding what's best for their game. The crusher feat does not say "Up, down, left, right, and any diagonal direction." To say that RAW you can move someone up with crusher is not accurate. What is accurate is to say that "RAW the rules of crusher do not prevent you from knocking someone upward." If you want to know whether or not crusher can move someone up in the air then ask your DM for a ruling.
DND rules are not written in any sort of legalese which is intentional. A common phrase from the developers of 5e is "rulings over rules". DM is suppose to use his common sense and decide what is allowed and what is not. To many a telekinesis crusher combo feel like a video game but others may like it. Neither is wrong. Denying this combo does not make one an adversarial or a bad DM. A DM will make this call based on what is best for his game and his/her players. It is his/her responsibility to make this ruling.
DMs can homebrew anything. If you wanna know if a dagger deals a d4 ask your DM.
DMs are free to deviate from RAW at any time and for any reason, correct.
One is RAW the other is homebrew. Neither are wrong.
I got quotes!
Yes, there are no famous examples ever of a person launching a sling stone at a larger enemy and causing significant problems for them
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I can critique a number of specific passages as bits of WotC, badly worded BS and view this to be another of them - and that it doesn't work.
No argument there.
No, it just says that, "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, ..." Decisions of reasonable possibilities for direction are dependent on the DM.
Lol. Admittedly I've less direct evidence here but I still suspect BS.
In any case, if goliath had been a d&d fighter of at least 1st level, he could easily have survived the 1d4 damage of a slingshot attack. I certainly don't think that Goliath could then have been moved in any direction.
Crusher, like all feats, is an optional rule. If you don’t like what it does, I highly suggest you let your players know beforehand so that they don’t waste a feat choice based on your biases against the way it was intentionally written to work.
no one here is arguing over what the all powerful DM can do when running the game. It’s a cop out to lean on that anyways, especially in the rules and game mechanics forum. Doesn’t serve much purpose about rules inquiry to say a DM can do W/E and it doesn’t matter.
A sling with a stone is actually if comparative stopping power to a mildly loaded .357 magnum cartridge out of a revolver. The worlds longest arrow shot is 930ft( by a man with no arms…) while the longest sling stone shot is 1434ft. Slings are much more powerful and difficult to use per shot and training required to use effectively.
I doubt realism actually matters in any way in regard to this conversation. The mechanics do what they say they do. It’s up to us to figure out how that works. So how about we say the stone from the sling was expertly aimed at the creatures legs or feet, and the pain caused them to jump up in w/e direction we choose.
GergKaye stated it perfectly, "Decisions of reasonable possibilities for direction are dependent on the DM." This is not bias. If crusher was meant to launch people in the air it could have stated it that way. It is not accurate to claim the intent of Crusher is to move people up and down. Crusher could have said something such as "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space in any horizontal or vertical direction of your choosing." The designers wisely choose to leave the specifics to the DM rather than make the details of the movement RAW.
If you want to combine feats and do something not explicitly called for in the rules as written then I highly suggest you chat with your DM before making your selections. Many DMs will utilize realism in part of their decision.
Add some of that divine intervention and David could have used a magic stone for an extra d6 + spellcasting modifier. Add some celestial homebrew and it could prove that smite can be used with ranged weapons.
The thread relevant argument here is whether a sling stone (a very tiny object) flung by a medium creature can move a creature one size larger, that's twice as big in all three dimensions, that's eight times the weight.
Sure, if a creature is sentient they might be shocked by any hard-hitting blow and real back from the shock. But if we just looked at the physics of a really small thing (even if flung by a 20 dex fighter) hitting a really big target, such as if an ooze, a plant or a zombie was hit, I just don't see that it would move very far. It's not like they've been hit by a Maul.
On the topic of mauls, if a character with the crusher feat used one to hit a creature of eight times their weight, I can still imagine them being knocked 5 feet back - but being knocked 5 feet off the ground? That's the stuff of cartoons and special effects movies, not physics.
Some DMs may buy into this which is all fair enough - but none of that can prevent another DM from fairly calling BS.
It does. Unoccupied space, within 5'.
Claims of intent are inherently suspicious without supporting quotes by authors. Unless otherwise supported by evidence, intent is what is RAW. You're free to believe and rule otherwise at your tables.
No one who has ever written anything professionally would ever add 9 whole extra words that add zero to the meaning. What you wrote is longer without meaning anything more than what they wrote. There are people, called editors, whose entire job is clipping off the 9 whole words you'd add.
5' up is RAW.
Look, I get it, you hate that it is RAW. Change it at your table. But you hating it doesn't make it not-RAW.
We don't always see eye to eye, Kotath, but even I gotta admit sometimes you're spittin' fire!
GregKyae, can I call you Gregory? Greg, what is relevant is a sling can impart more force than you give it credit for. Honestly most humans in 5e have like maybe 4 HP. A sling can easily one shot people. Accurate? Easily one shot em. A goliath commoner is still, what, a 5 hp creature that can 1/day reduce damage. Roll a 1 on that roll and sling could easily still 1 shot em, Gregykae.
The amount of realism we let into our D&D game is going to vary from table to table. Some games are basically anime, others are ye ol' reality simulator v1.3. RAW, when it is written permissively, is giving you RAW permission to do something. Can a DM say no to RAW permission? Of course. That is called homebrew and it is an absolutely valid and legit way to play.
If you did some force calculations you might be surprised by the results Gregeaky. A Maul and a Sling aren't going to be all that much different. Not enough to say one can lift a potential 3k+ Lbs Large creature 5' off the ground and the other can't, anyway. Neither could you make much an argument that either of them could push a large creature laterally, horizontally, or otherwise 5 whole feet. Gregyeak, do you know how much force that would "realistically take"??
No one has time for that. Most of us don't even know the formulas for how to even calculate the force required. The game has no method for determining which characters can apply which amount of force or for how long, in what intervals, what sustained periods or peak intensity. We can't simulate reality here, my friend, Gregyaek. We have a simple choice. We can either follow the rules or decide not to. It is a game. A game with layers upon layers of abstraction. Realistic force calculation? Not so much.
Yo welcome to D&D were there are dragons and magic spells.
Any DM is welcome...nay, encouraged to deviate from RAW and to homebrew. Gregkyea, there is even an entire forum dedicated to exactly that.
I got quotes!
Haha true true. I only meant to ground the reference scale by reminding folk that normal humans have 4hp. I'm sure mythological figure Goliath would have more, totally true.
TK shove couldn't 'really' do up unless you were underneath them. What is tricky, TBH, is that on a combat grid you character isn't 'specifically' anywhere. They're only 'somewhere' in a grid/space. Generally, this means for points of origin you need to pick a corner or something. In the case of something like TK shove you could theoretically pick the bottom front-facing corner. That's as close to an 'up' push you could get to an adjacent creature.
People, I admit, are sometimes just... wrong. It happens more than I'd like but it's a fact about the world in which we live. Honestly? Not sure how else to answer that question. Two players who read the same text who come away with different understandings? One of them is probably just very wrong. Misread a word. Skimmed it. Assumed they already knew what it meant and didn't read it. Hard to say why. But one of them, maybe both, are wrong.
Regardless of if the two players can read RAW rules or not, the DM should just make a ruling. All rulings DMs make in good faith are the correct ruling. Even if they're not RAW.
Too much importance is put on 'playing it RAW' here, like some sort of religiosity test. RAW is something to be understood academically. But actual rulings are how it gets played in practice at the table. Two wholly difference and separate topics.
I got quotes!
The Tasha's rules for Crusher include that:
Nothing is said about which unoccupied space can be involved or whether or not you can move someone up into the air. Many people looking at D&D maps may think of space in terms of a space on the map and yet nothing is specified.
An interpretation that the feat can move an opponent off the ground would constitute a significant buff and I would have thought that, if this was RAI, it would have been RAW.
Interesting points on the power of slings.
It's Greg Kaye but gerg, a typically less used name as suited for logins, is fine. :D
Frankly, everything to do with the crusher feat is quite astounding and the more I think of it. It gets complicated.
I think that the size thing I mentioned earlier is likely erroneous and that size as medium, large, huge etc, don't necessarily correspond with weights.
Within the framework with WotC measurements, sizes get complicated. With one size larger from a medium creature, if we considered all dimensions, on average, to double, then the logical result would be that weight, on average, would increase by a factor of eight. With one size larger from a large creature (such as if you're a rune knight, a wild shaped druid or are the recipient of either an enlarge spell of a potion of growth), if a next size up caused dimensions generally go up an extra 50%, weight would then go up by a lesser factor of 3.375.
(There's not a lot of consistency but why would there be? WotC uses an imperial measurements system that seems to have been first based on the lining up of barleycorns).
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.
Official weight information on monsters can be hard to come by which may seem strange when the spell levitate specifies "a target that weighs up to 500 pounds".
Anyway, your opponent can be bigger and heavier than you. Say your opponent is 8 times heavier. Logically, hitting with a force that could knock that opponent 5ft away from you could also knock you 40ft away from them ... but that don't happen. It could take some serious leaning in to knock a non-cooperative creature of the size of a horse 5 ft back. What would it take to lift it 5 feet off the ground?
I still have difficulty with the sling idea as, if you were sending something with that much force out horizontally, it would place an equal thrust back on you in equal measure. (If the stone was propelled to that proportional extent, we might even say it was delivering thunder damage, but that might be pushing it).
Playing RAW I more of an expectation because of smooth gameplay requirements. The RAW is the standard expectation of how players and the DM should expect to play the game. There’s no reason a group of 5 people who have agreed to play some DnD together should show up and have one of the players decide to change the rules, especially if those rules have a direct impact on the players character choices. The decision to change the rules is not necessarily bad, but it will have a ripple effect on the rest of the game.
if a DM wants to change how game mechanics works for the intent of a better game play experience, then that’s awesome.
nerfing a players feat choice arbitrarily does not make the game more fun.
if a DM wants to nerf a player characters feature it should should be talked about well before hand. A player only gets a handful of concrete choices in the game, the player should be notified if the changes we’ll beforehand si that they make change their concepts if necessary. Or maybe even choose not to play with that DM if they’re going to place stupid limitations on a PCs features.
the DM runs the game yes, but it can be difficult playing alone. Good thing they released sidekicks I suppose.
Playing RAW you cannot expect a huge buff to a feat with the stretched claim that you can knock a horse 5 ft in the air by hitting it with a stick.
You can shove a pegasus 5 feet straight up, I don't see how it's a stretch for the same rules wording to result in Crusher being at least as good as Shove. You can also Shove Aside a horse straight up, but Shove Aside is a variant rule.