Rather than having Crusher only be a forceful push away from you akin to shove or Pushing Attack maneuver, WoTC specifically made the forced movement more open ended and provided no fluff to leave it up to interpretations. How the target of the attack ends up moved 5 feet in any unoccupied space is up to everyone. Momentum, unbalance, hurl, shoving etc
As a DM i would certainly not limit a PC's effect because it can't explain it.
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.
One problem that I have with the idea of crusher being used to move someone 5 ft diagonally up, is that it might then be expected for them to come 5 ft diagonally down. That would then make 10 ft of movement rather than 5.
The hypothetical 10 feet of movement isn't a problem. Functionally, it's no different than if they had just moved 5 feet horizontally. After all, they aren't falling enough to cause damage. The issue is what constitutes a space. The rules of the game don't care about vertical movement with regards to space, and the feat only cares that the space is unoccupied, which leaves us with only one option: horizontal movement.
The feat can only move the target horizontally because diagonally up only matters if the space is occupied due to terrain, and the feat cannot move a target into an occupies space so the diagonal is rendered impossible.
The hypothetical 10 feet of movement isn't a problem. Functionally, it's no different than if they had just moved 5 feet horizontally. After all, they aren't falling enough to cause damage. The issue is what constitutes a space. The rules of the game don't care about vertical movement with regards to space, and the feat only cares that the space is unoccupied, which leaves us with only one option: horizontal movement.
The feat can only move the target horizontally because diagonally up only matters if the space is occupied due to terrain, and the feat cannot move a target into an occupies space so the diagonal is rendered impossible.
It could make a huge difference if there are hazzards 10 ft away and would greatly increase possible destination options.
The hypothetical 10 feet of movement isn't a problem. Functionally, it's no different than if they had just moved 5 feet horizontally. After all, they aren't falling enough to cause damage. The issue is what constitutes a space. The rules of the game don't care about vertical movement with regards to space, and the feat only cares that the space is unoccupied, which leaves us with only one option: horizontal movement.
The feat can only move the target horizontally because diagonally up only matters if the space is occupied due to terrain, and the feat cannot move a target into an occupies space so the diagonal is rendered impossible.
It could make a huge difference if there are hazzards 10 ft away and would greatly increase possible destination options.
No, it won't. If you sent them diagonally 5 feet up, say at a 45 degree angle, they're not going to fall another 5 feet for 10 away. They're going to crash back down the same space away as if you had just pushed them into it directly.
The only way it might have an impact if if the added distance up into the air was enough for them to take fall damage, such as an extra 1d6 as they fall to a lower elevation or into a trap. But not only is that a fringe case, now you're also actively trying to add an altitude to something which doesn't expressly have one. Which is, strictly speaking, homebrew territory. Remember, you're not just moving the target 5 feet. You're moving it 5 feet into an unoccupied space. And spaces are, by default, 5 feet square. They're not cubes, they can't be. If they were, we'd have races in the PHB that occupy two vertical spaces.
So, at what height does the adjacent space stop being occupied? Or can you just send them flying up to an elevation that's empty because it's technically only one space away? Verticality is a can of worms that Crusher expressly isn't interested in opening.
The other, really big issue with knocking them up is when they fall, by RAW, they land prone. Knocking something prone, for no extra action (shield master makes you use a bonus action, at least) and doing it without the enemy getting a check to stay up is pretty OP. A fighter can fling someone up with their first attack, with no chance to resist it. Then use the rest of their attacks to wail on the prone enemy. It would put PAM/sentinel cheese to shame. I never liked the juggling idea the OP had, but I’d been willing to go with lifting them up if they fell right back down. Now I think about it, it’s just another reason to not allow a vertical effect for the feat, at all.
A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer.
At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall.
If there's no damage from being pushed 5 feet off the ground and falling back down (a pointless trick), then the target isn't prone.
The hypothetical 10 feet of movement isn't a problem. Functionally, it's no different than if they had just moved 5 feet horizontally. After all, they aren't falling enough to cause damage. The issue is what constitutes a space. The rules of the game don't care about vertical movement with regards to space, and the feat only cares that the space is unoccupied, which leaves us with only one option: horizontal movement.
The feat can only move the target horizontally because diagonally up only matters if the space is occupied due to terrain, and the feat cannot move a target into an occupies space so the diagonal is rendered impossible.
It could make a huge difference if there are hazzards 10 ft away and would greatly increase possible destination options.
No, it won't. If you sent them diagonally 5 feet up, say at a 45 degree angle, they're not going to fall another 5 feet for 10 away. They're going to crash back down the same space away as if you had just pushed them into it directly.
The only way it might have an impact if if the added distance up into the air was enough for them to take fall damage, such as an extra 1d6 as they fall to a lower elevation or into a trap. But not only is that a fringe case, now you're also actively trying to add an altitude to something which doesn't expressly have one. Which is, strictly speaking, homebrew territory. Remember, you're not just moving the target 5 feet. You're moving it 5 feet into an unoccupied space. And spaces are, by default, 5 feet square. They're not cubes, they can't be. If they were, we'd have races in the PHB that occupy two vertical spaces.
So, at what height does the adjacent space stop being occupied? Or can you just send them flying up to an elevation that's empty because it's technically only one space away? Verticality is a can of worms that Crusher expressly isn't interested in opening.
The crusher feat can be used in tandem with ongoing spells effects that deal damage to creatures when they enter a the area on a turn. There are several spells that can be used to do this. The lowest level and probably least impactful example would be create the bonfire cantrip. It’s description causes a creature to make a saving throw when it moves into the bonfires space for the first time on a turn. This has synergy with the crusher feat, as a large or smaller creature who is in the spell effects space on an allies turn can be moved 5ft upward and out of the spells space, but then move back into the space when they fall down 5ft. Since this is the first time the creature moved into that space the spell effect in, it would cause a save and potentially deal damage.
this can be done with cloud of daggers and other spell effects.
some spell effects extend out from a point that can be a place in the air, but have a radius that can extend downward in such a precise way that medium creatures can move around relatively free from harm under the space, but larger creatures would have a difficult time doing so. Sickening radiance for example has a radius of 30ft, so placing the sphere 35ft up can create a pocket of relative safety for medium creatures underneath the effect. And if a medium creature is knocked upward on a turn it must make that save or take damage and immediately fall down. The gravity takes away the possibility of a target starting its turn in the area, but it potentially gives more opportunities to cause it to get forced into that area by number of turns available.
The feat you are citing (crusher) applies to all blunt damage attacks. This mean it applies to melee hits too. Are you saying that the Crusher feat somehow applies a telekinetic force that has nothing to do with crushing?
The other feat being cited (Telekinetic) is irrelevant with respect to crusher directly, since telekinetic does not do blunt damage. Or any damage at all.
You're free to narrate your story however you want. If you wanna narrate crusher as some limited form of telekinesis, go for it! More power to you. Block out the haters, tell a great story.
Mechanically, it moves them 5' when you hit with bludgeoning damage. Narrative-wise it does so in whatever way tells a cool story or paints an awesome picture in your mind.
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 other, really big issue with knocking them up is when they fall, by RAW, they land prone. Knocking something prone, for no extra action (shield master makes you use a bonus action, at least) and doing it without the enemy getting a check to stay up is pretty OP. A fighter can fling someone up with their first attack, with no chance to resist it. Then use the rest of their attacks to wail on the prone enemy. It would put PAM/sentinel cheese to shame. I never liked the juggling idea the OP had, but I’d been willing to go with lifting them up if they fell right back down. Now I think about it, it’s just another reason to not allow a vertical effect for the feat, at all.
As far a power goes, this isn't OP. The TK shove needs to succeed, and they get a Str save against it. Plus it costs your Bonus Action. And you needed to ave successfully hit their AC with the preceding bludgeoning attack. It'd probably be easier to have just gone the shield master route and shoved them. Or PAM and shove them then BA attacked em. This particular combo is only 'cool' not OP. The enemy has numerous ways to avoid it.
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.
What Jeremy says in the video doesn't contradict the feat mechanic, he is just providing cause-and-effect fluff
Jeremy Crawford:The bludgeoning damage can move you, this idea of you getting crushed, smashed or hurled around.
Not "the mighty blow invokes cosmic forces to help you" but "The bludgeoning damage can move you" That is quite a conceptual gap there.
Why would rules start with mechanics and then conceptual 'fluff' later? In what way would 'Shove something in any bloody direction you please, even relatively towards you' connect in any way with needing to deal blunt damage?
How would those planning discussions go, anyway? You really figure they came up with the mechanics for crusher, piercer and slasher first and then came up with some arbitrary trappings for them after the fact? Why limit the benefit of Crusher to blunt, Piercer to piercing and Slasher to slashing then? Why not call them 'Toss, Damage Reroll and Cripple respectively? If they really are intended to be so re-flavorable....
Yes, the movement requires the attack to hit and deal bludgeoning damage. This is the mechanical part not in question. As written, it doesn't even require a weapon attack even though they were originally planned as weapon feats. They also opened it up there to be more usable than originally planned.
It'd be conceptual to be hurled around like the Dev says, after a blunt blow by say loosing your balance and stepping forward or sideways uncontrollably for exemple. Or be driven into the air by the force of the blow and fall back down. Obelix used to do this all the time loll
They didn't came up with trapping, they purposefully made them open up to interpretations by baking no fluff in them. They're not re-flavorable, they just don't have any flavor in the first place and it's up to you to give it the flavor you want.
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.
One problem that I have with the idea of crusher being used to move someone 5 ft diagonally up, is that it might then be expected for them to come 5 ft diagonally down. That would then make 10 ft of movement rather than 5.
It's not a 10 feet movement in term of positioning though as you fall vertically and end up in the same space you could have been moved horizontally. Where you land is still within 5 feet of where you were basically.
Shield Master requires you to be using a shield, to have used an attack action first and to shove away (so no 'up' since the 5' cube one up and one over from you is still and adjacent cube).
Shove has that same 'away' problem.
And there being a different means of accomplishing something does not mean that all means should be able to accomplish that thing.
Crusher doesn't contain the movement limitation that Shield Master has. The word away isn't there for Crusher so it doesn't have that same 'away' problem.
Crusher: you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space
Shield Master: you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
Shove: you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you.
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.
One problem that I have with the idea of crusher being used to move someone 5 ft diagonally up, is that it might then be expected for them to come 5 ft diagonally down. That would then make 10 ft of movement rather than 5.
It's not a 10 feet movement in term of positioning though as you fall vertically and end up in the same space you could have been moved horizontally. Where you land is still within 5 feet of where you were basically.
Obelix had the Crusher feat for sure ☺
My god, I love Obelix and, one way or another, he certainly exhibited those abilities. Obelix also had permanent superhuman strength which he gained since falling into the Gaul's potion. He is also typically portrayed as one size larger than his typical opponents though his abilities didn't stop there. Hulk also had similar effects with what might be described as smasher abilities. Given factors such as levels of strength, or even at a whim if that's the game style, a DM may adjudicate that anything is possible.
The idea of someone travelling diagonally upwards and then, without having hit a barrier such as a wall, not travelling diagonally downwards is incongruous - but, I guess, this is d&d we are dealing with. Groups opting not to side with more realistic interpretations of the RAW content of the crusher feat, a valid and arguably 'cool' option, can do what they like.
I'd also argue that there are many great examples of combats where the character's remained within 5 ft of the ground that were still able to tell cool stories and paint awesome pictures in our minds. It just depends on the interpretation we're going for.
The hypothetical 10 feet of movement isn't a problem. Functionally, it's no different than if they had just moved 5 feet horizontally. After all, they aren't falling enough to cause damage. The issue is what constitutes a space. The rules of the game don't care about vertical movement with regards to space, and the feat only cares that the space is unoccupied, which leaves us with only one option: horizontal movement.
The feat can only move the target horizontally because diagonally up only matters if the space is occupied due to terrain, and the feat cannot move a target into an occupies space so the diagonal is rendered impossible.
It could make a huge difference if there are hazzards 10 ft away and would greatly increase possible destination options.
No, it won't. If you sent them diagonally 5 feet up, say at a 45 degree angle, they're not going to fall another 5 feet for 10 away. They're going to crash back down the same space away as if you had just pushed them into it directly.
The only way it might have an impact if if the added distance up into the air was enough for them to take fall damage, such as an extra 1d6 as they fall to a lower elevation or into a trap. But not only is that a fringe case, now you're also actively trying to add an altitude to something which doesn't expressly have one. Which is, strictly speaking, homebrew territory. Remember, you're not just moving the target 5 feet. You're moving it 5 feet into an unoccupied space. And spaces are, by default, 5 feet square. They're not cubes, they can't be. If they were, we'd have races in the PHB that occupy two vertical spaces.
So, at what height does the adjacent space stop being occupied? Or can you just send them flying up to an elevation that's empty because it's technically only one space away? Verticality is a can of worms that Crusher expressly isn't interested in opening.
The crusher feat can be used in tandem with ongoing spells effects that deal damage to creatures when they enter a the area on a turn. There are several spells that can be used to do this. The lowest level and probably least impactful example would be create the bonfire cantrip. It’s description causes a creature to make a saving throw when it moves into the bonfires space for the first time on a turn. This has synergy with the crusher feat, as a large or smaller creature who is in the spell effects space on an allies turn can be moved 5ft upward and out of the spells space, but then move back into the space when they fall down 5ft. Since this is the first time the creature moved into that space the spell effect in, it would cause a save and potentially deal damage.
this can be done with cloud of daggers and other spell effects.
some spell effects extend out from a point that can be a place in the air, but have a radius that can extend downward in such a precise way that medium creatures can move around relatively free from harm under the space, but larger creatures would have a difficult time doing so. Sickening radiance for example has a radius of 30ft, so placing the sphere 35ft up can create a pocket of relative safety for medium creatures underneath the effect. And if a medium creature is knocked upward on a turn it must make that save or take damage and immediately fall down. The gravity takes away the possibility of a target starting its turn in the area, but it potentially gives more opportunities to cause it to get forced into that area by number of turns available.
Cool. They still can't be knocked up 5 feet into the air.
The feat you are citing (crusher) applies to all blunt damage attacks. This mean it applies to melee hits too. Are you saying that the Crusher feat somehow applies a telekinetic force that has nothing to do with crushing?
The other feat being cited (Telekinetic) is irrelevant with respect to crusher directly, since telekinetic does not do blunt damage. Or any damage at all.
You're free to narrate your story however you want. If you wanna narrate crusher as some limited form of telekinesis, go for it! More power to you. Block out the haters, tell a great story.
Mechanically, it moves them 5' when you hit with bludgeoning damage. Narrative-wise it does so in whatever way tells a cool story or paints an awesome picture in your mind.
You have yet to explain how one narrates any kind of 'cool story' with Crusher knocking someone back towards you.
Even magic has internal logic. You have provided precisely none.
How about you smash someone’s toe and they jump up and down screaming profanity until they find themselves where you placed them.
The hypothetical 10 feet of movement isn't a problem. Functionally, it's no different than if they had just moved 5 feet horizontally. After all, they aren't falling enough to cause damage. The issue is what constitutes a space. The rules of the game don't care about vertical movement with regards to space, and the feat only cares that the space is unoccupied, which leaves us with only one option: horizontal movement.
The feat can only move the target horizontally because diagonally up only matters if the space is occupied due to terrain, and the feat cannot move a target into an occupies space so the diagonal is rendered impossible.
It could make a huge difference if there are hazzards 10 ft away and would greatly increase possible destination options.
No, it won't. If you sent them diagonally 5 feet up, say at a 45 degree angle, they're not going to fall another 5 feet for 10 away. They're going to crash back down the same space away as if you had just pushed them into it directly.
The only way it might have an impact if if the added distance up into the air was enough for them to take fall damage, such as an extra 1d6 as they fall to a lower elevation or into a trap. But not only is that a fringe case, now you're also actively trying to add an altitude to something which doesn't expressly have one. Which is, strictly speaking, homebrew territory. Remember, you're not just moving the target 5 feet. You're moving it 5 feet into an unoccupied space. And spaces are, by default, 5 feet square. They're not cubes, they can't be. If they were, we'd have races in the PHB that occupy two vertical spaces.
So, at what height does the adjacent space stop being occupied? Or can you just send them flying up to an elevation that's empty because it's technically only one space away? Verticality is a can of worms that Crusher expressly isn't interested in opening.
The crusher feat can be used in tandem with ongoing spells effects that deal damage to creatures when they enter a the area on a turn. There are several spells that can be used to do this. The lowest level and probably least impactful example would be create the bonfire cantrip. It’s description causes a creature to make a saving throw when it moves into the bonfires space for the first time on a turn. This has synergy with the crusher feat, as a large or smaller creature who is in the spell effects space on an allies turn can be moved 5ft upward and out of the spells space, but then move back into the space when they fall down 5ft. Since this is the first time the creature moved into that space the spell effect in, it would cause a save and potentially deal damage.
this can be done with cloud of daggers and other spell effects.
some spell effects extend out from a point that can be a place in the air, but have a radius that can extend downward in such a precise way that medium creatures can move around relatively free from harm under the space, but larger creatures would have a difficult time doing so. Sickening radiance for example has a radius of 30ft, so placing the sphere 35ft up can create a pocket of relative safety for medium creatures underneath the effect. And if a medium creature is knocked upward on a turn it must make that save or take damage and immediately fall down. The gravity takes away the possibility of a target starting its turn in the area, but it potentially gives more opportunities to cause it to get forced into that area by number of turns available.
Cool. They still can't be knocked up 5 feet into the air.
The feat you are citing (crusher) applies to all blunt damage attacks. This mean it applies to melee hits too. Are you saying that the Crusher feat somehow applies a telekinetic force that has nothing to do with crushing?
The other feat being cited (Telekinetic) is irrelevant with respect to crusher directly, since telekinetic does not do blunt damage. Or any damage at all.
You're free to narrate your story however you want. If you wanna narrate crusher as some limited form of telekinesis, go for it! More power to you. Block out the haters, tell a great story.
Mechanically, it moves them 5' when you hit with bludgeoning damage. Narrative-wise it does so in whatever way tells a cool story or paints an awesome picture in your mind.
You have yet to explain how one narrates any kind of 'cool story' with Crusher knocking someone back towards you.
Even magic has internal logic. You have provided precisely none.
I am not your DM and this isn't story time. We're on the Rules Forum. We're discussing the rules.
You don't seem to have difficulty understanding the rule, though. Your issue seems to come from not being able to come up with narrative to describe what is happening at your table if someone uses a fairly straightforward feat. You're unable to come up with a narrative explanation for how the game works.
I understand this can be difficult, I sympathize with your plight. But. This isn't the right forum for that discussion. I'd recommend maybe starting up a new topic in one of the more appropriate forums for how to tell an interesting narrative, maybe.
On this forum, we really should be sticking to what the rules do. And, the rule for this feat is straightforward, clear, and unambiguous. You move them 5', into unoccupied space. Up? Down? Left? Right? So long as it is 5', and into unoccupied space, go for it.
Whether you describe it as them stumbling, or a shockwave, or as a hulking smash, or telekinesis, or get super silly with it and describe pink butterflies descending and manhandling them... they move 5' when you hit em with a bludgeoning attack.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rather than having Crusher only be a forceful push away from you akin to shove or Pushing Attack maneuver, WoTC specifically made the forced movement more open ended and provided no fluff to leave it up to interpretations. How the target of the attack ends up moved 5 feet in any unoccupied space is up to everyone. Momentum, unbalance, hurl, shoving etc
As a DM i would certainly not limit a PC's effect because it can't explain it.
What Jeremy says in the video doesn't contradict the feat mechanic, he is just providing cause-and-effect fluff
One problem that I have with the idea of crusher being used to move someone 5 ft diagonally up, is that it might then be expected for them to come 5 ft diagonally down. That would then make 10 ft of movement rather than 5.
The hypothetical 10 feet of movement isn't a problem. Functionally, it's no different than if they had just moved 5 feet horizontally. After all, they aren't falling enough to cause damage. The issue is what constitutes a space. The rules of the game don't care about vertical movement with regards to space, and the feat only cares that the space is unoccupied, which leaves us with only one option: horizontal movement.
The feat can only move the target horizontally because diagonally up only matters if the space is occupied due to terrain, and the feat cannot move a target into an occupies space so the diagonal is rendered impossible.
It could make a huge difference if there are hazzards 10 ft away and would greatly increase possible destination options.
No, it won't. If you sent them diagonally 5 feet up, say at a 45 degree angle, they're not going to fall another 5 feet for 10 away. They're going to crash back down the same space away as if you had just pushed them into it directly.
The only way it might have an impact if if the added distance up into the air was enough for them to take fall damage, such as an extra 1d6 as they fall to a lower elevation or into a trap. But not only is that a fringe case, now you're also actively trying to add an altitude to something which doesn't expressly have one. Which is, strictly speaking, homebrew territory. Remember, you're not just moving the target 5 feet. You're moving it 5 feet into an unoccupied space. And spaces are, by default, 5 feet square. They're not cubes, they can't be. If they were, we'd have races in the PHB that occupy two vertical spaces.
So, at what height does the adjacent space stop being occupied? Or can you just send them flying up to an elevation that's empty because it's technically only one space away? Verticality is a can of worms that Crusher expressly isn't interested in opening.
The other, really big issue with knocking them up is when they fall, by RAW, they land prone. Knocking something prone, for no extra action (shield master makes you use a bonus action, at least) and doing it without the enemy getting a check to stay up is pretty OP. A fighter can fling someone up with their first attack, with no chance to resist it. Then use the rest of their attacks to wail on the prone enemy. It would put PAM/sentinel cheese to shame.
I never liked the juggling idea the OP had, but I’d been willing to go with lifting them up if they fell right back down. Now I think about it, it’s just another reason to not allow a vertical effect for the feat, at all.
If there's no damage from being pushed 5 feet off the ground and falling back down (a pointless trick), then the target isn't prone.
The crusher feat can be used in tandem with ongoing spells effects that deal damage to creatures when they enter a the area on a turn. There are several spells that can be used to do this. The lowest level and probably least impactful example would be create the bonfire cantrip. It’s description causes a creature to make a saving throw when it moves into the bonfires space for the first time on a turn. This has synergy with the crusher feat, as a large or smaller creature who is in the spell effects space on an allies turn can be moved 5ft upward and out of the spells space, but then move back into the space when they fall down 5ft. Since this is the first time the creature moved into that space the spell effect in, it would cause a save and potentially deal damage.
this can be done with cloud of daggers and other spell effects.
some spell effects extend out from a point that can be a place in the air, but have a radius that can extend downward in such a precise way that medium creatures can move around relatively free from harm under the space, but larger creatures would have a difficult time doing so. Sickening radiance for example has a radius of 30ft, so placing the sphere 35ft up can create a pocket of relative safety for medium creatures underneath the effect. And if a medium creature is knocked upward on a turn it must make that save or take damage and immediately fall down. The gravity takes away the possibility of a target starting its turn in the area, but it potentially gives more opportunities to cause it to get forced into that area by number of turns available.
You're free to narrate your story however you want. If you wanna narrate crusher as some limited form of telekinesis, go for it! More power to you. Block out the haters, tell a great story.
Mechanically, it moves them 5' when you hit with bludgeoning damage. Narrative-wise it does so in whatever way tells a cool story or paints an awesome picture in your mind.
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.
As far a power goes, this isn't OP. The TK shove needs to succeed, and they get a Str save against it. Plus it costs your Bonus Action. And you needed to ave successfully hit their AC with the preceding bludgeoning attack. It'd probably be easier to have just gone the shield master route and shoved them. Or PAM and shove them then BA attacked em. This particular combo is only 'cool' not OP. The enemy has numerous ways to avoid it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, the movement requires the attack to hit and deal bludgeoning damage. This is the mechanical part not in question. As written, it doesn't even require a weapon attack even though they were originally planned as weapon feats. They also opened it up there to be more usable than originally planned.
It'd be conceptual to be hurled around like the Dev says, after a blunt blow by say loosing your balance and stepping forward or sideways uncontrollably for exemple. Or be driven into the air by the force of the blow and fall back down. Obelix used to do this all the time loll
They didn't came up with trapping, they purposefully made them open up to interpretations by baking no fluff in them. They're not re-flavorable, they just don't have any flavor in the first place and it's up to you to give it the flavor you want.
It's not a 10 feet movement in term of positioning though as you fall vertically and end up in the same space you could have been moved horizontally. Where you land is still within 5 feet of where you were basically.
Obelix had the Crusher feat for sure ☺
Crusher doesn't contain the movement limitation that Shield Master has. The word away isn't there for Crusher so it doesn't have that same 'away' problem.
My god, I love Obelix and, one way or another, he certainly exhibited those abilities.
Obelix also had permanent superhuman strength which he gained since falling into the Gaul's potion. He is also typically portrayed as one size larger than his typical opponents though his abilities didn't stop there.
Hulk also had similar effects with what might be described as smasher abilities.
Given factors such as levels of strength, or even at a whim if that's the game style, a DM may adjudicate that anything is possible.
The idea of someone travelling diagonally upwards and then, without having hit a barrier such as a wall, not travelling diagonally downwards is incongruous - but, I guess, this is d&d we are dealing with. Groups opting not to side with more realistic interpretations of the RAW content of the crusher feat, a valid and arguably 'cool' option, can do what they like.
I'd also argue that there are many great examples of combats where the character's remained within 5 ft of the ground that were still able to tell cool stories and paint awesome pictures in our minds. It just depends on the interpretation we're going for.
Jerry's crusher feat, when used, could affect a creature of at least 2 sizes larger.
Anything may work dependent on the type of game you want to play.
Cool. They still can't be knocked up 5 feet into the air.
How about you smash someone’s toe and they jump up and down screaming profanity until they find themselves where you placed them.
Yea they can.
I am not your DM and this isn't story time. We're on the Rules Forum. We're discussing the rules.
You don't seem to have difficulty understanding the rule, though. Your issue seems to come from not being able to come up with narrative to describe what is happening at your table if someone uses a fairly straightforward feat. You're unable to come up with a narrative explanation for how the game works.
I understand this can be difficult, I sympathize with your plight. But. This isn't the right forum for that discussion. I'd recommend maybe starting up a new topic in one of the more appropriate forums for how to tell an interesting narrative, maybe.
On this forum, we really should be sticking to what the rules do. And, the rule for this feat is straightforward, clear, and unambiguous. You move them 5', into unoccupied space. Up? Down? Left? Right? So long as it is 5', and into unoccupied space, go for it.
Whether you describe it as them stumbling, or a shockwave, or as a hulking smash, or telekinesis, or get super silly with it and describe pink butterflies descending and manhandling them... they move 5' when you hit em with a bludgeoning attack.
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.