Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6418665" data-attributes="member: 2011">I am trying to answer your question. There is no specific single rule, but there are a series of rules that lean towards one interpretation and not the other. You are stuck on "I refuse to accept multiple RAW rules without this one RAW rule being there". When the answer is, there is no RAW rule, but a reasonable adjudication should be possible, then why are you harping on "there is no RAW rule"?So, let me try again to discuss this with you.A 6 foot tall human. Does not jump. He has a reach 5 attack.How high up into the air in feet can he attack a foe (flying creature off the ground) without jumping?There are no longer squares in 5E, so this is a reasonable question. Maybe it has multiple different answers, but some should be more reasonable than others. 20 feet up is not reasonable.That's a simple question. Can you give me a simple adjudication for this or not?Note: You do realize that the next question is: A 3 foot tall halfling. Does not jump. He has a reach 5 attack. How high up into the air in feet can he attack a foe (flying creature off the ground) without jumping?</blockquote>