The Pegasus would have to be above you already, so its wings would be making it effectively lighter.
Neither Shove nor Crusher have any rules that care about weight or relative position (beyond being in range, of course), and both have the same rules for caring about size. It's the same wording.
Even if they did, there's no rules support for the creature weighing less while flying - and in general, any such rule would have to be written very differently for different forms of flight, such as an eagle, a dragonfly, and a beholder. If it makes the analysis easier, we can drop a riding horse onto the PC from 505 feet up. The horse will stop in the space above the PC, and the PC can shove it 5 feet straight up. This is true whether the horse weighs 5 pounds or 5000.
If you're a DM and you think this is cool and want to allow it, then go for it. If you're a DM and you think this is cheeze, then don't allow it.
If you're a player and your DM allows it, go for it. If you're a player and your DM says it's cheeze, then that's that. Make a different choice. There's no point coming here and trying to convince the entire world a particular interpretation of RAW is allowed or not... That will never happen.
As for me, I think it's cheeze:
To illustrate my point, the definition of the word "OCCUPIED" is "a thing or a place used by someone". If player 1 convinces their DM that 'up' is an unoccupied space, then player 2 could also say the inside of a solid wall is ALSO an unoccupied space. And I hope I don't have to convince anyone things get a bit silly at that point.
I will always do my best to prevent interpretations at my table that could be used as a precedent to even sillier interpretations.
I would also point out that pushing something "up" is not "away" if it is understood it will immediately fall back to where it started. If an ability or spell says something has to end 5 feet away from where it started, then when the turn is over, that thing better be 5 feet away from where it started. Not have been temporarily 5 feet away during the turn.
I have no doubt that Crusher allow you to move a target vertically, as it's an unoccupied space 5 feet of you.
And once it finds itself in mid air, the target falls.
The question is wether it happens instantaneously or one have time to do something before it falls.
Optional rules say it's immediate. The basic rules don't mention any timing ( Dev said the basic falling rules in D&D assume a fall is instantaneous.) so it'd be up to DM to rule.
Call the DM as bad for making a rule call is unwelcome though, as they're final arbitrer of what happen at the table.
This may have already come up. I started on page 6 and followed on over to 7.
The DM decides what a "space" is. Conventionally, this refers to 5-foot squares when playing on a grid. If you're talking about verticality, then you may also declaring that 5-foot tall vertical cubes exist. Which means some creatures will naturally occupy more than one cube because they're more than 5-feet tall. And, I'm sorry, but I don't think that works.
You can move them horizontally across a plane, but not diagonally or vertically.
The Pegasus would have to be above you already, so its wings would be making it effectively lighter.
lol wut
That isn't how anything works. It requires exactly the same amount of force to lift something 5ft whether it is already in the air or if it is on the ground.
Thankfully D&D isn't a reality simulator. The ability just does what it says it does. Magic, elves, dragons, and pegasi. But you guys wanna calculate the force of sticks??? lol stop. Just... stop.
Crusher lets you move them 5'. That's it. Super straightforward. No physics degree required.
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.
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.
As a physical feat I see this as much more akin to the Battle Master pushing attack: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to drive the target back. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and if the target is Large or smaller, it must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, you push the target up to 15 feet away from you.
You crush an opponent, which may thematically fit with them being pushed along the ground. You push someone and, again, the typical interpretation is of action along the ground.
This is no mystically ki empowered monk power. It's a physically enabled feat with potential physical limits.
Some other 5e abilities make specific mention of directions of movement and, with WotC's track record, I think it's perfectly possible they just forgot. For instance:
... 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. ...
A lot may depend on the interpretation intended with "unoccupied space".
One possibility fits my experience as an electrician driving a nice roomy van. When not driving I'd leave the van in some space or another. All spaces were on a level and, if I didn't find a space on one level, I'd look for one on another.
We don't have any specifics given with regard to direction of movement or on the meaning intended by "unoccupied space". It's all been left for DMs to adjudicate.
Personally, I find it quite implausible that a physical feat can allow a medium-sized character to hit a horse of typical weight up to a height of 5 ft with a bat or stick. I have doubts and I think they're reasonable.
... It requires exactly the same amount of force to lift something 5ft whether it is already in the air or if it is on the ground. ...
Not if that something has a facility to carry its own weight.
You're wrong, and this isn't relevant to the topic.
Assuming inertial reference is the same, an object in the air and an object on the ground requires essentially* identical amount of force to lift equivalent distances. I say essentially because very technically the object higher up requires less, but this is due to the square-cube function of the distance part of the gravity calculation, since it is ever so slightly further from the planets center of gravity. But at this distance of 5' that is so infinitesimally small you'll not even be able to meaningfully measure it.
That's why you're wrong.
But the reason it doesn't matter is because this is a game and we don't do force calculations, when the rules say they move 5' into an unoccupied space... they just do.
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.
Crusher lets you move them 5'. That's it. Super straightforward. No physics degree required.
Uh huh, and if a DM doesn't allow the force of your blunt strike to move the target literally any direction you want, regardless of the direction you actually struck, regardless of how little sense that makes, you consider the DM somehow unfair to the player?
Dunno. Why are they doing it? Intent matters. They're deviating from RAW. Why? When did they announce this homebrew? Mid-combat? Before character creation? Timing matters too.
Let's go back to that sling stone. You hit the target so hard with a sling bullet that it... flies straight up? That if flies towards you??
Sure. Why not? Is this harder for you to reconcile than a dragon? Or a fireball? Or any of the myriad fantastical elements of this game? It is not a reality simulator, and never tries to be one. It... is a game. A Fantasy game.
No physics degrees needed to see how little sense that makes.
But flying through mystical powers, teleporting, polymorphing into a squirrel, those... those your physics degree is good with? k
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.
Whether it is flying or not, shove can only be 'away.'
Correct. Crusher has no such proviso.
Lifting someone in front of you up is arguably not 'away' so at best you could manage an angle up and away from you, not directly up.
This is correct if the target is horizontally adjacent to you, because shoving the target straight up leaves them at the same distance from you as before the shove, which is illegal: if you're at 0,0,0 and your target is at 1,0,0 in Cartesian terms, then they're 1 grid unit away from you (5 feet). Because 1,1,0 is also 1 unit from you, shoving someone there would require Shove Aside, not Shove. However, if the target is at 1,1,0 when you Shove, you could Shove them to 1,2,0, which would be 1 space straight up, and that would be legally away.
Weight is taken into account in that there is a size limit based on your size, but the 'away' accounts for both weight and force vectors. Telekinetic shove does not have the same 'away' qualifier.
Away doesn't account for force in any way. and size doesn't account for weight. It accounts for volume (or, if you're playing two dimensionally, cross-sectional area). What Away does is guarantee directionality in a way Crusher does not - Crusher does not say "away", so you can Crusher someone closer to you, or equidistant to you.
Point is, none of these rules interact with weight in any way, shape, or form. Your target can have negative weight, weight 0, weight 1 pound, or weight 1 ton, and it won't matter.
To illustrate my point, the definition of the word "OCCUPIED" is "a thing or a place used by someone".
No, objects can occupy a space.
If player 1 convinces their DM that 'up' is an unoccupied space, then player 2 could also say the inside of a solid wall is ALSO an unoccupied space.
False, because under most DMs, a solid wall occupies space (because it is solid), while air does not. Your logic would mean that if you fought someone on an open plain, all possible directions are occupied, because the space above the target and the space behind the target contain the same thing - gaseous air. Instead, most people agree that in this context, down is occupied, but all spaces above the ground which neither combatant are in are unoccupied.
I would also point out that pushing something "up" is not "away" if it is understood it will immediately fall back to where it started. If an ability or spell says something has to end 5 feet away from where it started, then when the turn is over, that thing better be 5 feet away from where it started. Not have been temporarily 5 feet away during the turn.
Crusher doesn't have to move anything away - Shove does, but Crusher doesn't.
... It requires exactly the same amount of force to lift something 5ft whether it is already in the air or if it is on the ground. ...
Not if that something has a facility to carry its own weight.
You're wrong, and this isn't relevant to the topic.
Assuming inertial reference is the same, an object in the air and an object on the ground requires essentially* identical amount of force to lift equivalent distances. I say essentially because very technically the object higher up requires less, but this is due to the square-cube function of the distance part of the gravity calculation, since it is ever so slightly further from the planets center of gravity. But at this distance of 5' that is so infinitesimally small you'll not even be able to meaningfully measure it.
That's why you're wrong.
But the reason it doesn't matter is because this is a game and we don't do force calculations, when the rules say they move 5' into an unoccupied space... they just do.
WHAT THE ****!!!
you have a dig for NO reason but to have a dig and when someone correctly states that it's how things could work, you go full hypocrite.
Yes, of course. Everyone knows that larger usually means lighter.
This is the fallacy you are committing. If I were to apply the same fallacy back at you, I would accuse you of claiming hot air balloons don't exist. Please do not argue in bad faith.
And that direction of force has nothing whatsoever to do with anything so you can 'obviously' shoot someone in the back with an arrow from in front of them as a normal shot.
5E does not normally have facing. You can't shoot someone in the back or the front. You can shoot someone. There are variant rules for facing, and if you use them, then the rules absolutely do ban what you're saying.
And how often does one face a hot air balloon in D&D, exactly? Please..... talk about arguing in bad faith. (Edit: You clearly missed the word 'usually' or at least dismissed it).
That the Devs didn't put disclaimers in for every exception no matter how rare does nothing to deny the clear implied intent.
While there are no facing rules, if you are fighting someone one on one, it is reasonable to any sane person to assume you are doing so facing each other. Again, you are going full rules lawyer here. Fair game to some extent, this being the rules and game mechanics section, but even so....
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
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.
And how often does one face a hot air balloon in D&D, exactly? Please..... talk about arguing in bad faith. (Edit: You clearly missed the word 'usually' or at least dismissed it).
That the Devs didn't put disclaimers in for every exception no matter how rare does nothing to deny the clear implied intent.
While there are no facing rules, if you are fighting someone one on one, it is reasonable to any sane person to assume you are doing so facing each other. Again, you are going full rules lawyer here. Fair game to some extent, this being the rules and game mechanics section, but even so....
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
I'd say that direction was a pretty central topic in this discussion and, with the WotC text failing to provide the relevant information, you don't get to dictate which factors people get to choose to consider.
And how often does one face a hot air balloon in D&D, exactly? Please..... talk about arguing in bad faith. (Edit: You clearly missed the word 'usually' or at least dismissed it).
That the Devs didn't put disclaimers in for every exception no matter how rare does nothing to deny the clear implied intent.
While there are no facing rules, if you are fighting someone one on one, it is reasonable to any sane person to assume you are doing so facing each other. Again, you are going full rules lawyer here. Fair game to some extent, this being the rules and game mechanics section, but even so....
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
I'd say that direction was a pretty central topic in this discussion and, with the WotC text failing to provide the relevant information, you don't get to dictate which factors people get to choose to consider.
I don't get to dictate them, correct. The rules do. The rules don't limit the ability by weight so it isn't limited by weight. The rules similarly don't limit the target by creature type, age, coloration, religion, national origin, they're not limited by level, HD, bonuses to saves, whether or not they're proficient in the Yarting, none of that. Just size, and if the destination is unoccupied. Period.
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.
And how often does one face a hot air balloon in D&D, exactly? Please..... talk about arguing in bad faith. (Edit: You clearly missed the word 'usually' or at least dismissed it).
That the Devs didn't put disclaimers in for every exception no matter how rare does nothing to deny the clear implied intent.
While there are no facing rules, if you are fighting someone one on one, it is reasonable to any sane person to assume you are doing so facing each other. Again, you are going full rules lawyer here. Fair game to some extent, this being the rules and game mechanics section, but even so....
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
I'd say that direction was a pretty central topic in this discussion and, with the WotC text failing to provide the relevant information, you don't get to dictate which factors people get to choose to consider.
I don't get to dictate them, correct. The rules do. The rules don't limit the ability by weight so it isn't limited by weight. The rules similarly don't limit the target by creature type, age, coloration, religion, national origin, they're not limited by level, HD, bonuses to saves, whether or not they're proficient in the Yarting, none of that. Just size, and if the destination is unoccupied. Period.
If you don't get to dictate then stop it. For DMs considering a context of realism, in absence of clear guidelines, they can consider what they like.
And how often does one face a hot air balloon in D&D, exactly? Please..... talk about arguing in bad faith. (Edit: You clearly missed the word 'usually' or at least dismissed it).
That the Devs didn't put disclaimers in for every exception no matter how rare does nothing to deny the clear implied intent.
While there are no facing rules, if you are fighting someone one on one, it is reasonable to any sane person to assume you are doing so facing each other. Again, you are going full rules lawyer here. Fair game to some extent, this being the rules and game mechanics section, but even so....
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
I'd say that direction was a pretty central topic in this discussion and, with the WotC text failing to provide the relevant information, you don't get to dictate which factors people get to choose to consider.
I don't get to dictate them, correct. The rules do. The rules don't limit the ability by weight so it isn't limited by weight. The rules similarly don't limit the target by creature type, age, coloration, religion, national origin, they're not limited by level, HD, bonuses to saves, whether or not they're proficient in the Yarting, none of that. Just size, and if the destination is unoccupied. Period.
If you don't get to dictate then stop it. For DMs considering a context of realism, in absence of clear guidelines, they can consider what they like.
You confuse me telling you what the rules say for me dictating what you must do at your tables. You can do whatever you want at your table. But what you do doesn't change the RAW.
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.
And how often does one face a hot air balloon in D&D, exactly? Please..... talk about arguing in bad faith. (Edit: You clearly missed the word 'usually' or at least dismissed it).
That the Devs didn't put disclaimers in for every exception no matter how rare does nothing to deny the clear implied intent.
While there are no facing rules, if you are fighting someone one on one, it is reasonable to any sane person to assume you are doing so facing each other. Again, you are going full rules lawyer here. Fair game to some extent, this being the rules and game mechanics section, but even so....
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
I'd say that direction was a pretty central topic in this discussion and, with the WotC text failing to provide the relevant information, you don't get to dictate which factors people get to choose to consider.
I don't get to dictate them, correct. The rules do. The rules don't limit the ability by weight so it isn't limited by weight. The rules similarly don't limit the target by creature type, age, coloration, religion, national origin, they're not limited by level, HD, bonuses to saves, whether or not they're proficient in the Yarting, none of that. Just size, and if the destination is unoccupied. Period.
If you don't get to dictate then stop it. For DMs considering a context of realism, in absence of clear guidelines, they can consider what they like.
You confuse me telling you what the rules say for me dictating what you must do at your tables. You can do whatever you want at your table. But what you do doesn't change the 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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Neither Shove nor Crusher have any rules that care about weight or relative position (beyond being in range, of course), and both have the same rules for caring about size. It's the same wording.
Even if they did, there's no rules support for the creature weighing less while flying - and in general, any such rule would have to be written very differently for different forms of flight, such as an eagle, a dragonfly, and a beholder. If it makes the analysis easier, we can drop a riding horse onto the PC from 505 feet up. The horse will stop in the space above the PC, and the PC can shove it 5 feet straight up. This is true whether the horse weighs 5 pounds or 5000.
Why is this 6 page argument still going on?
If you're a DM and you think this is cool and want to allow it, then go for it. If you're a DM and you think this is cheeze, then don't allow it.
If you're a player and your DM allows it, go for it. If you're a player and your DM says it's cheeze, then that's that. Make a different choice. There's no point coming here and trying to convince the entire world a particular interpretation of RAW is allowed or not... That will never happen.
As for me, I think it's cheeze:
To illustrate my point, the definition of the word "OCCUPIED" is "a thing or a place used by someone". If player 1 convinces their DM that 'up' is an unoccupied space, then player 2 could also say the inside of a solid wall is ALSO an unoccupied space. And I hope I don't have to convince anyone things get a bit silly at that point.
I will always do my best to prevent interpretations at my table that could be used as a precedent to even sillier interpretations.
I would also point out that pushing something "up" is not "away" if it is understood it will immediately fall back to where it started. If an ability or spell says something has to end 5 feet away from where it started, then when the turn is over, that thing better be 5 feet away from where it started. Not have been temporarily 5 feet away during the turn.
I have no doubt that Crusher allow you to move a target vertically, as it's an unoccupied space 5 feet of you.
And once it finds itself in mid air, the target falls.
The question is wether it happens instantaneously or one have time to do something before it falls.
Optional rules say it's immediate. The basic rules don't mention any timing ( Dev said the basic falling rules in D&D assume a fall is instantaneous.) so it'd be up to DM to rule.
Call the DM as bad for making a rule call is unwelcome though, as they're final arbitrer of what happen at the table.
Jeremy Crawford's ruling on Open Hand goes in the same direction concerning what pushing away means
This may have already come up. I started on page 6 and followed on over to 7.
The DM decides what a "space" is. Conventionally, this refers to 5-foot squares when playing on a grid. If you're talking about verticality, then you may also declaring that 5-foot tall vertical cubes exist. Which means some creatures will naturally occupy more than one cube because they're more than 5-feet tall. And, I'm sorry, but I don't think that works.
You can move them horizontally across a plane, but not diagonally or vertically.
lol wut
That isn't how anything works. It requires exactly the same amount of force to lift something 5ft whether it is already in the air or if it is on the ground.
Thankfully D&D isn't a reality simulator. The ability just does what it says it does. Magic, elves, dragons, and pegasi. But you guys wanna calculate the force of sticks??? lol stop. Just... stop.
Crusher lets you move them 5'. That's it. Super straightforward. No physics degree required.
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.
I have no doubt that it's debatable.
Crusher says that:
As a physical feat I see this as much more akin to the Battle Master pushing attack:
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to drive the target back. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and if the target is Large or smaller, it must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, you push the target up to 15 feet away from you.
You crush an opponent, which may thematically fit with them being pushed along the ground.
You push someone and, again, the typical interpretation is of action along the ground.
This is no mystically ki empowered monk power. It's a physically enabled feat with potential physical limits.
Some other 5e abilities make specific mention of directions of movement and, with WotC's track record, I think it's perfectly possible they just forgot. For instance:
A lot may depend on the interpretation intended with "unoccupied space".
One possibility fits my experience as an electrician driving a nice roomy van. When not driving I'd leave the van in some space or another. All spaces were on a level and, if I didn't find a space on one level, I'd look for one on another.
We don't have any specifics given with regard to direction of movement or on the meaning intended by "unoccupied space". It's all been left for DMs to adjudicate.
Personally, I find it quite implausible that a physical feat can allow a medium-sized character to hit a horse of typical weight up to a height of 5 ft with a bat or stick. I have doubts and I think they're reasonable.
It's certainly how it could work.
The pegusus would be carrying its own weight through the action of "its wings". It's a flying horse.
Not if that something has a facility to carry its own weight.
You're wrong, and this isn't relevant to the topic.
Assuming inertial reference is the same, an object in the air and an object on the ground requires essentially* identical amount of force to lift equivalent distances. I say essentially because very technically the object higher up requires less, but this is due to the square-cube function of the distance part of the gravity calculation, since it is ever so slightly further from the planets center of gravity. But at this distance of 5' that is so infinitesimally small you'll not even be able to meaningfully measure it.
That's why you're wrong.
But the reason it doesn't matter is because this is a game and we don't do force calculations, when the rules say they move 5' into an unoccupied space... they just do.
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.
Dunno. Why are they doing it? Intent matters. They're deviating from RAW. Why? When did they announce this homebrew? Mid-combat? Before character creation? Timing matters too.
Sure. Why not? Is this harder for you to reconcile than a dragon? Or a fireball? Or any of the myriad fantastical elements of this game? It is not a reality simulator, and never tries to be one. It... is a game. A Fantasy game.
But flying through mystical powers, teleporting, polymorphing into a squirrel, those... those your physics degree is good with? k
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.
Away doesn't account for force in any way. and size doesn't account for weight. It accounts for volume (or, if you're playing two dimensionally, cross-sectional area). What Away does is guarantee directionality in a way Crusher does not - Crusher does not say "away", so you can Crusher someone closer to you, or equidistant to you.
Point is, none of these rules interact with weight in any way, shape, or form. Your target can have negative weight, weight 0, weight 1 pound, or weight 1 ton, and it won't matter.
Crusher doesn't have to move anything away - Shove does, but Crusher doesn't.
WHAT THE ****!!!
you have a dig for NO reason but to have a dig and when someone correctly states that it's how things could work, you go full hypocrite.
This is the fallacy you are committing. If I were to apply the same fallacy back at you, I would accuse you of claiming hot air balloons don't exist. Please do not argue in bad faith.
5E does not normally have facing. You can't shoot someone in the back or the front. You can shoot someone. There are variant rules for facing, and if you use them, then the rules absolutely do ban what you're saying.
Weight isn't a factor here. Only occupied v unoccupied spaces. There are no disclaimers for weight because the entire topic of weight is a red herring that has nothing to do with the ability in question. Nothing.
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.
Crusher says that:
I'd say that direction was a pretty central topic in this discussion and, with the WotC text failing to provide the relevant information, you don't get to dictate which factors people get to choose to consider.
I don't get to dictate them, correct. The rules do. The rules don't limit the ability by weight so it isn't limited by weight. The rules similarly don't limit the target by creature type, age, coloration, religion, national origin, they're not limited by level, HD, bonuses to saves, whether or not they're proficient in the Yarting, none of that. Just size, and if the destination is unoccupied. Period.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you don't get to dictate then stop it. For DMs considering a context of realism, in absence of clear guidelines, they can consider what they like.
You confuse me telling you what the rules say for me dictating what you must do at your tables. You can do whatever you want at your table. But what you do doesn't change the RAW.
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.
RAW is incomplete and open to interpretation:
Crusher says that: