Three dimensions exist, but it isn't space. Space is the area you control, based on your size. When the feat moves you into an unoccupied space, it changes the area you control and an area you previously controlled is no longer controlled by you. It's big enough for a Small or Medium creature to move in and control without squeezing into a smaller space. And every Small and Medium creature controls a 5x5 space, regardless of whether they're prone, standing upright, or even jumping. That's the RAW.
Area, by definition, is always just two dimensions: length and width. If you want to know how high your character can reach, multiply their height by 1.5. But that isn't a second, or even third, space. It can't be because that isn't area. You're now working in volume.
Verticality exists, and it does so ambiguously. It's an exception to the general rules about movement. And any interpretation which does not rely on clearly expressed rules is, by definition, not RAW. So, since this is a RAW forum, the idea of forcibly moving targets vertically into another space is homebrew.
You must run a bizarre game if a guy on the ground can melee against a flying enemy 200' up in the air simply because their 2D spaces are adjacent.
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.
In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand.
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules here.
Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping, climbing, and swimming.
There are then sections on:
Breaking Up Your Move ...
Difficult Terrain ...
Being Prone ...
Moving around other creatures ...
Flying Movement
Flying creatures enjoy many benefits of mobility, but they must also deal with the danger of falling. If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell.
Creature Size
Each creature takes up a different amount of space. The Size Categories table shows how much space a creature of a particular size controls in combat. Objects sometimes use the same size categories.
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
A creature can squeeze through a space that is large enough for a creature one size smaller than it. Thus, a Large creature can squeeze through a passage that's only 5 feet wide. While squeezing through a space, a creature must spend 1 extra foot for every foot it moves there, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage while it's in the smaller space.
VARIANT: PLAYING ON A GRID
If you play out a combat using a square grid and miniatures or other tokens, follow these rules.
Squares. Each square on the grid represents 5 feet.
Speed. Rather than moving foot by foot, move square by square on the grid. This means you use your speed in 5-foot segments. This is particularly easy if you translate your speed into squares by dividing the speed by 5. For example, a speed of 30 feet translates into a speed of 6 squares.
If you use a grid often, consider writing your speed in squares on your character sheet.
Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you’re in. (The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism for the sake of smooth play. The Dungeon Master’s Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach.)
If a square costs extra movement, as a square of difficult terrain does, you must have enough movement left to pay for entering it. For example, you must have at least 2 squares of movement left to enter a square of difficult terrain.
Corners. Diagonal movement can’t cross the corner of a wall, large tree, or other terrain feature that fills its space.
Ranges. To determine the range on a grid between two things—whether creatures or objects—start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them and stop counting in the space of the other one. Count by the shortest route.
as indicated as appearing from p192 >>. Any references to "space" will have been from earlier texts on that page.
RAW speaks of space in relation to area and, on that basis, a creature with an ability to fly or float in air or swim or otherwise move in a fluid, dependent on any possible ceiling height or substance depth, may adopt a vertical position in that space. In the context of creatures that aren't flying or swimming beneath a liquid surface, there is a clear definition given for space. Further adjudication may be necessary when dealing with creatures that fly or swim.
Even if we don't consider vertical axis have spaces, which, we can assume just for sake of addressing your point.
The Crusher Feat still allows you to knock them up. Because they're still in an otherwise unoccupied space. And you moved them 5'.
The feat doesn't specify a direct, and so no amount of rules lawyering gets you to where you're trying to go with this. Just homebrew it if you have a problem with it. But be courteous to your players and let them know you're doing so before they make their character.
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.
.... Exactly what "Space" would a hovering beholder take then? ...
Yeah, d&d terminologies are messed up.
What's clear is that a creature's space relates to an area. The only difference with a flying creature is that it occupies it at altitude. A rider on a horse can occupy the same space, so can two gnomes in a trenchcoat, so can a barbarian and a high-level druid, wildshaped and flying high overhead. In d&d the space is the area.
There is gravity everywhere and yet, in 5e, it manages to continue on as exerting a consistent level of force before it suddenly blinks out.
It's amazing how people can argue fiercely about RAW up to the point where it indicates that any physical feat enabled, medium-sized creature, can't hit a horse sized creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick. And now you want to argue physics based logic?
Would you prefer the campaign died from the stasis of there being nowhere to move due to every possible space filled with tarrasques? Or impossible to breath because there is no air, only tarrasques?
Filling all empty space with Tarrasques is a physics based anything?
It is not a given regardless that gravity applies equally everywhere. If they ever put out a Spelljammer book it will be clear but on the Astral you move purely by thinking. No gravity.
RAW speaks of space in relation to area and, on that basis, a creature with an ability to fly or float in air or swim or otherwise move in a fluid, dependent on any possible ceiling height or substance depth, may adopt a vertical position in that space. In the context of creatures that aren't flying or swimming beneath a liquid surface, there is a clear definition given for space. Further adjudication may be necessary when dealing with creatures that fly or swim.
Even if we don't consider vertical axis have spaces, which, we can assume just for sake of addressing your point.
The Crusher Feat still allows you to knock them up. Because they're still in an otherwise unoccupied space. And you moved them 5'.
The feat doesn't specify a direct, and so no amount of rules lawyering gets you to where you're trying to go with this. Just homebrew it if you have a problem with it. But be courteous to your players and let them know you're doing so before they make their character.
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.
Crusher feat "allows you to knock them" "to an unoccupied space".
There is gravity everywhere and yet, in 5e, it manages to continue on as exerting a consistent level of force before it suddenly blinks out.
It's amazing how people can argue fiercely about RAW up to the point where it indicates that any physical feat enabled, medium-sized creature, can't hit a horse sized creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick. And now you want to argue physics based logic?
Would you prefer the campaign died from the stasis of there being nowhere to move due to every possible space filled with tarrasques? Or impossible to breath because there is no air, only tarrasques?
Filling all empty space with Tarrasques is a physics based anything?
It is not a given regardless that gravity applies equally everywhere. If they ever put out a Spelljammer book it will be clear but on the Astral you move purely by thinking. No gravity.
5e has its rules yet this has not happened.
it was an analogy to show how space (a) has multiple meanings and (b) this can be discussed without any reliance on real life physics references (countering your earlier objection to my mentioning black holes).
The situation has not happened because every DM who has ever DM'd understands the concept of space and spaces just fine without having to resort to such extreme measures to prove it to any player.
The 5e understanding ofSpace as used by DMs like Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford says:
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
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.
Yea they can.
Are we really going to keep doing this dance? The only stipulation is they're knocked 5 feet into an unoccupied space. Because each space is a 5 foot square. You can't knock them straight up 5 feet into that hypothetical space because that space doesn't exist. This is because spaces don't have a height; unless you're trying to impose them. And diagonals are utterly pointless because (A) spaces don't have a height and (B) there's no functional point if they're just going to "fall" back down another 5 feet onto the ground.
Which means now you're just trying to cheese this because a ledge might be only 5 feet lower or there's a strange AoE that's just above everyone else's heads but somehow doesn't affect anyone. Seriously, if we're going to even pretend to entertain the Sickening Radiance in the sky example then we have to clearly define height for spaces. And these heights, RAW, do not exist. Which means engaging in homebrew. And this is a RAW forum, so it's a moot point.
So what should they be? five-foot cubes? 125 cubic feet of volume? What does this mean for characters taller than the "space" like Dragonborn and Goliaths?
And we all know you can't add something the feat doesn't include (i.e. silence is not consent).
So, please, explain your position. Because I'd love for this to make even an inkling of sense.
You literally said spaces do not have height....so a 200ft flying creature exists next to the goliath swinging a sword at it on the ground since its within 5ft horizontally.
If thats not what you meant then I believe you need to do a better job explaining what you actually mean?
RAW speaks of space in relation to area and, on that basis, a creature with an ability to fly or float in air or swim or otherwise move in a fluid, dependent on any possible ceiling height or substance depth, may adopt a vertical position in that space. In the context of creatures that aren't flying or swimming beneath a liquid surface, there is a clear definition given for space. Further adjudication may be necessary when dealing with creatures that fly or swim.
Even if we don't consider vertical axis have spaces, which, we can assume just for sake of addressing your point.
The Crusher Feat still allows you to knock them up. Because they're still in an otherwise unoccupied space. And you moved them 5'.
The feat doesn't specify a direct, and so no amount of rules lawyering gets you to where you're trying to go with this. Just homebrew it if you have a problem with it. But be courteous to your players and let them know you're doing so before they make their character.
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.
Crusher feat "allows you to knock them" "to an unoccupied space".
Yes, this is what I've been saying. For pages. It's just that some people have a hard time grasping this concept.
There is the geographical concept of "space", and there is the game's definition of space: an area a creature effectively controls in combat. The feat may not care how the target enters that unoccupied space, but they must enter that unoccupied space. The problem with vertical movement is you must determine where the space begins. And 5E has no rules for where a space might begin or end vertically. This likely has something to do with different creatures of the same Size having different relative dimensions. We can see this plainly enough with the rules for a high jump in the previous chapter of the PHB. Different creatures can reach different heights above their heads. So the vertical limits of a given creature's space are left undefined for a DM to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis. This makes sense.
Rules as written, this means that unless the upper limit of a creature's vertical space is actually 5 feet, you cannot knock them up 5 feet into another unoccupied space. Because without that imaginary plane, the space does not exist. That space must be defined, and that space must be uniform or else some characters can be affected this way and others cannot. So, either a gnome and goliath occupy the same space or they don't. And if that space is arbitrarily capped at a 5-foot cube, then the goliath is standing taller than their occupied space. And they do not, cannot, control the space from their shoulders and up; not even if they can swing a weapon up there. There are actual implications to how the game is played if this train of thought is taken to its logical conclusion.
There is gravity everywhere and yet, in 5e, it manages to continue on as exerting a consistent level of force before it suddenly blinks out.
It's amazing how people can argue fiercely about RAW up to the point where it indicates that any physical feat enabled, medium-sized creature, can't hit a horse sized creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick. And now you want to argue physics based logic?
Would you prefer the campaign died from the stasis of there being nowhere to move due to every possible space filled with tarrasques? Or impossible to breath because there is no air, only tarrasques?
Filling all empty space with Tarrasques is a physics based anything?
It is not a given regardless that gravity applies equally everywhere. If they ever put out a Spelljammer book it will be clear but on the Astral you move purely by thinking. No gravity.
5e has its rules yet this has not happened.
it was an analogy to show how space (a) has multiple meanings and (b) this can be discussed without any reliance on real life physics references (countering your earlier objection to my mentioning black holes).
The situation has not happened because every DM who has ever DM'd understands the concept of space and spaces just fine without having to resort to such extreme measures to prove it to any player.
The 5e understanding ofSpace as used by DMs like Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford says:
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
That is the definition of a Creature's space, not of space generally. If the only spaces that exist are spaces occupied by creatures, then the term unoccupied space is meaningless because there are none.
Meanwhile, you seem to be arguing that the standing high jump, despite having rules clearly describing it and how high one can jump thereby, does not and cannot really exist.
By your logic then a creature who can jump 20 ft in the air straight up never leaves it's space as long as it never moves horizontal?
So you can jump 20ft in the air and not take attacks of opportunity?
Your logic makes little sense from a game perspective.
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.
Yea they can.
Are we really going to keep doing this dance? The only stipulation is they're knocked 5 feet into an unoccupied space. Because each space is a 5 foot square. You can't knock them straight up 5 feet into that hypothetical space because that space doesn't exist. This is because spaces don't have a height; unless you're trying to impose them. And diagonals are utterly pointless because (A) spaces don't have a height and (B) there's no functional point if they're just going to "fall" back down another 5 feet onto the ground.
Which means now you're just trying to cheese this because a ledge might be only 5 feet lower or there's a strange AoE that's just above everyone else's heads but somehow doesn't affect anyone. Seriously, if we're going to even pretend to entertain the Sickening Radiance in the sky example then we have to clearly define height for spaces. And these heights, RAW, do not exist. Which means engaging in homebrew. And this is a RAW forum, so it's a moot point.
So what should they be? five-foot cubes? 125 cubic feet of volume? What does this mean for characters taller than the "space" like Dragonborn and Goliaths?
And we all know you can't add something the feat doesn't include (i.e. silence is not consent).
So, please, explain your position. Because I'd love for this to make even an inkling of sense.
You literally said spaces do not have height....so a 200ft flying creature exists next to the goliath swinging a sword at it on the ground since its within 5ft horizontally.
If thats not what you meant then I believe you need to do a better job explaining what you actually mean?
Whether you consider a 5e Space to have height or not is irrelevant. Whether you consider an area to have height or not is irrelevant. A 5e Space is an area. That's the definition given. Sorry. That's the definition given in RAW. If you can't work it out, we can't help you. Vertical distance and heights are still widely discussed such as in PHb chapter 8 on climbing, jumping and swimming. The PHb section on Movement and Position covers the topic of flight. You fly in or between areas (aka 5e spaces) at positions of height.
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.
Yea they can.
Are we really going to keep doing this dance? The only stipulation is they're knocked 5 feet into an unoccupied space. Because each space is a 5 foot square. You can't knock them straight up 5 feet into that hypothetical space because that space doesn't exist. This is because spaces don't have a height; unless you're trying to impose them. And diagonals are utterly pointless because (A) spaces don't have a height and (B) there's no functional point if they're just going to "fall" back down another 5 feet onto the ground.
Which means now you're just trying to cheese this because a ledge might be only 5 feet lower or there's a strange AoE that's just above everyone else's heads but somehow doesn't affect anyone. Seriously, if we're going to even pretend to entertain the Sickening Radiance in the sky example then we have to clearly define height for spaces. And these heights, RAW, do not exist. Which means engaging in homebrew. And this is a RAW forum, so it's a moot point.
So what should they be? five-foot cubes? 125 cubic feet of volume? What does this mean for characters taller than the "space" like Dragonborn and Goliaths?
And we all know you can't add something the feat doesn't include (i.e. silence is not consent).
So, please, explain your position. Because I'd love for this to make even an inkling of sense.
You literally said spaces do not have height....so a 200ft flying creature exists next to the goliath swinging a sword at it on the ground since its within 5ft horizontally.
If thats not what you meant then I believe you need to do a better job explaining what you actually mean?
Whether you consider a 5e Space to have height or not is irrelevant. Whether you consider an area to have height or not is irrelevant. A 5e Space is an area. That's the definition given. Sorry. That's the definition given in RAW. If you can't work it out, we can't help you. Vertical distance and heights are still widely discussed such as in PHb chapter 8 on climbing, jumping and swimming. The PHb section on Movement and Position covers the topic of flight. You fly in or between areas (aka 5e spaces) at positions of height.
You still don't address how having no height makes any logical sense as obviously you can't attack a creature 200ft up vertically but only 5ft horizontal.
it was an analogy to show how space (a) has multiple meanings and (b) this can be discussed without any reliance on real life physics references (countering your earlier objection to my mentioning black holes).
The situation has not happened because every DM who has ever DM'd understands the concept of space and spaces just fine without having to resort to such extreme measures to prove it to any player.
The 5e understanding ofSpace as used by DMs like Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford says:
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
That is the definition of a Creature's space, not of space generally. If the only spaces that exist are spaces occupied by creatures, then the term unoccupied space is meaningless because there are none.
Meanwhile, you seem to be arguing that the standing high jump, despite having rules clearly describing it and how high one can jump thereby, does not and cannot really exist.
The text does not say that "the only spaces that exist are spaces occupied by creatures". It just gives reference to "A creature's space". The amount of space required by a creature relates to the creature's size. a tiny creature requires a space sized 2 1/2 by 2 1/2 ft while a gargantuan creature requires a space sized 20 by 20 ft. or larger. "Larger creatures take up more space". Space is something that creatures take up, but that does not mean that space can't exist without a creature.
I was arguing that "the 5e understanding of Space as used by DMs like Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford" has not resulted in worlds brimming with tarrasques.
A 5e space (an area) can exist as per RAW, but that does not stop someone jumping, climbing, swimming or, given the ability, flying. How could it? There are rules that explain all these things.
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.
Yea they can.
Are we really going to keep doing this dance? The only stipulation is they're knocked 5 feet into an unoccupied space. Because each space is a 5 foot square. You can't knock them straight up 5 feet into that hypothetical space because that space doesn't exist. This is because spaces don't have a height; unless you're trying to impose them. And diagonals are utterly pointless because (A) spaces don't have a height and (B) there's no functional point if they're just going to "fall" back down another 5 feet onto the ground.
Which means now you're just trying to cheese this because a ledge might be only 5 feet lower or there's a strange AoE that's just above everyone else's heads but somehow doesn't affect anyone. Seriously, if we're going to even pretend to entertain the Sickening Radiance in the sky example then we have to clearly define height for spaces. And these heights, RAW, do not exist. Which means engaging in homebrew. And this is a RAW forum, so it's a moot point.
So what should they be? five-foot cubes? 125 cubic feet of volume? What does this mean for characters taller than the "space" like Dragonborn and Goliaths?
And we all know you can't add something the feat doesn't include (i.e. silence is not consent).
So, please, explain your position. Because I'd love for this to make even an inkling of sense.
You literally said spaces do not have height....so a 200ft flying creature exists next to the goliath swinging a sword at it on the ground since its within 5ft horizontally.
If thats not what you meant then I believe you need to do a better job explaining what you actually mean?
Whether you consider a 5e Space to have height or not is irrelevant. Whether you consider an area to have height or not is irrelevant. A 5e Space is an area. That's the definition given. Sorry. That's the definition given in RAW. If you can't work it out, we can't help you. Vertical distance and heights are still widely discussed such as in PHb chapter 8 on climbing, jumping and swimming. The PHb section on Movement and Position covers the topic of flight. You fly in or between areas (aka 5e spaces) at positions of height.
You still don't address how having no height makes any logical sense as obviously you can't attack a creature 200ft up vertically but only 5ft horizontal.
You can't... So obviously height is part of space
Simple Ranged Weapons include the light crossbow, a commonly available piece of adventuring gear which, with a range of 80/320 and according to RAW, will allow you to shoot at a creature 200ft up vertically at disadvantage. Distance is the term used in 5e and, as the creature remains in long-range for weapons like the light crossbow, it can potentially be hit.
"you can move it to an unoccupied space within 5 feet"
Permission is granted to move them 5'. But you can only move them 5' into an unoccupied space.
Stop trying to argue that the feat allows you to move them to a space, which must be within 5 feet. It is inherently incorrect and disingenuous argument.
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.
.... Exactly what "Space" would a hovering beholder take then? ...
Yeah, d&d terminologies are messed up.
What's clear is that a creature's space relates to an area. The only difference with a flying creature is that it occupies it at altitude. A rider on a horse can occupy the same space, so can two gnomes in a trenchcoat, so can a barbarian and a high-level druid, wildshaped and flying high overhead. In d&d the space is the area.
Gnomes are small creatures, they cannot occupy each other’s space any longer than it takes one of them to move into the others space and then move to a different space. Creatures of the same size cannot continue to occupy the same space unless another rule says so.
"you can move it to an unoccupied space within 5 feet"
Permission is granted to move them 5'. But you can only move them 5' into an unoccupied space.
Stop trying to argue that the feat allows you to move them to a space, which must be within 5 feet. It is inherently incorrect and disingenuous argument.
No, it isn't incorrect or disingenuous. Frankly, I'm not sure you understand the meanings of those two words. The two sentences you presented as examples are functionally identical and lay out the same criteria and outcomes. You're arguing nothing.
It is true that permission is granted, once per turn, to move a compatible target 5 feet. It is also true their destination must be an unoccupied space. And because they can only be moved 5 feet, that unoccupied space must be within 5 feet. You can't have one without the other. If they continue to move more than 5 feet, it is because something else has forced that movement. Moving horizontally, whether it's in Cardinal directions or at a diagonal, is well understood. It's the moving along the Z-axis that has people confused because there are no rules for the Z-axis.
The issue has always been people not grasping that the rules clearly define what a space is. Space is an area. Moving upward does not change that area. Diagonally theoretically can change the area, but that's where it can get weird. If you can move a target up at a 45 degree angle onto a ledge, they'll land and stay on their feet. If you can knock them up to artificially extend the height of a fall, they'll take an extra 1d6 fall damage. But it comes across as dishonest because that's not the height they started their turn at. If you're trying to cheese the system, that's up for the DM to allow. But it certainly isn't RAW, and this is a RAW forum.
Also, the DMG Pg 248 has a handy chart going over relative size of creatures specifically regarding height. There’s further guidance a few pages later with recommendations regarding vertical game play.
I think a more interesting issue that I noticed about the feat after staring at these posts fir days is as follows:
• Increase your Strength or Constitution by 1, to a maximum of 20. • 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. • When you score a critical hit that deals bludgeoning damage to a creature, attack rolls against that creature are made with advantage until the start ofyour next turn.
the bold and underlined portion says we can move a creature 5ft to an unoccupied space, so long as it’s not more than 1 size larger than the feat used. Let us consider a medium creature attacking a large creature. A larger creature takes up more than 5ft of space. This means that even within the workings of the feat, a large or larger creature can never actually be moved to an unoccupied space. A large or larger creature cannot be moved 5ft to an unoccupied space as the distance isn’t far enough for the target creature to move out of the space the target creature is already occupying. There’s also the fact that moving a large or larger creature means that it can never move to a single 5ft space, as it always takes up multiple.
Also, the DMG Pg 248 has a handy chart going over relative size of creatures specifically regarding height. There’s further guidance a few pages later with recommendations regarding vertical game play.
I think a more interesting issue that I noticed about the feat after staring at these posts fir days is as follows:
• Increase your Strength or Constitution by 1, to a maximum of 20. • 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. • When you score a critical hit that deals bludgeoning damage to a creature, attack rolls against that creature are made with advantage until the start ofyour next turn.
the bold and underlined portion says we can move a creature 5ft to an unoccupied space, so long as it’s not more than 1 size larger than the feat used. Let us consider a medium creature attacking a large creature. A larger creature takes up more than 5ft of space. This means that even within the workings of the feat, a large or larger creature can never actually be moved to an unoccupied space. A large or larger creature cannot be moved 5ft to an unoccupied space as the distance isn’t far enough for the target creature to move out of the space the target creature is already occupying. There’s also the fact that moving a large or larger creature means that it can never move to a single 5ft space, as it always takes up multiple.
words…
That is because an unoccupied space has no defined area. A creature can step one foot to the side and it's space moves with it, it's only when a grid is used that one foot movement doesn't work. Moving a creature 5 feet into an unoccupied area just moves it's occupied space 5 feet with it. Outside of the optional grid rule two medium creatures can stand 65 inches from each other and there would be 5 inches between their occupied spaces with another medium creature standing 6 feet away centered between the other two forming a triangle. Also that's only during combat, outside of combat creatures only occupy their physical space like objects unless there is hostilities.
Also, the DMG Pg 248 has a handy chart going over relative size of creatures specifically regarding height. There’s further guidance a few pages later with recommendations regarding vertical game play.
I think a more interesting issue that I noticed about the feat after staring at these posts fir days is as follows:
• Increase your Strength or Constitution by 1, to a maximum of 20. • 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. • When you score a critical hit that deals bludgeoning damage to a creature, attack rolls against that creature are made with advantage until the start ofyour next turn.
the bold and underlined portion says we can move a creature 5ft to an unoccupied space, so long as it’s not more than 1 size larger than the feat used. Let us consider a medium creature attacking a large creature. A larger creature takes up more than 5ft of space. This means that even within the workings of the feat, a large or larger creature can never actually be moved to an unoccupied space. A large or larger creature cannot be moved 5ft to an unoccupied space as the distance isn’t far enough for the target creature to move out of the space the target creature is already occupying. There’s also the fact that moving a large or larger creature means that it can never move to a single 5ft space, as it always takes up multiple.
words…
Certainly you can. Remember, the core rules do not assume a grid. Any creature, no matter how tall, on a flat plain has unoccupied space above it and in every horizontal direction, no matter how wide.
Something that may be tripping you up here is that "occupied" and "unoccupied" aren't defined anywhere - there's 5E "common English" terms - and the same is true of "space". Even when you hit the PHB's rules discussion of "space" on pages 191-192, what you get is the definition of a creature's space (not the general definition of space, mind), and immediately following that, the squeezing rules, covering e.g. a Large creature squeezing through a space large enough for a Medium creature - a space that can't be a creature's space, since a creature can't invade another creature's space.
"Space" is accordingly just what it says it is, since we have to work with common English. Consider the L6 Conjurer ability, Benign Transposition. You could use that to teleport e.g. into a glass box, if you wanted, even if the box was smaller than 5x5x5 - supposing you're pretty small, like a Halfling, you won't even be uncomfortable. You could also, and this is apparently relevant to this thread because I still see people making the nonsensical claim that space doesn't exist vertically, use it to teleport 30 feet straight up, because of course there's space above you. There's space everywhere. Some of it is occupied and some of it isn't, and some of it is visible and some of it isn't, but there's an infinite amount of space around you at all times in every direction.
.... Exactly what "Space" would a hovering beholder take then? ...
Yeah, d&d terminologies are messed up.
What's clear is that a creature's space relates to an area. The only difference with a flying creature is that it occupies it at altitude. A rider on a horse can occupy the same space, so can two gnomes in a trenchcoat, so can a barbarian and a high-level druid, wildshaped and flying high overhead. In d&d the space is the area.
Gnomes are small creatures, they cannot occupy each other’s space any longer than it takes one of them to move into the others space and then move to a different space. Creatures of the same size cannot continue to occupy the same space unless another rule says so.
Sorry about mentioning the gnomes.
While in combat creatures of the same size cannot continue to occupy the same space but, while in a trenchcoat, that may not be the gnomes priority.
Out of 5e combat, creatures can certainly occupy the same space. For instance, i t was likely in this kind of close proximity that our mummies and daddies made us.
Whether in or out of combat, space in 5e remains descriptive of area.
Personally, I would allow one character to stand on another character, say, to shoot over a wall. I certain consequence would be that that character below would have limited if not negated abilities while the character above might be at disadvantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You must run a bizarre game if a guy on the ground can melee against a flying enemy 200' up in the air simply because their 2D spaces are adjacent.
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.
Even if we don't consider vertical axis have spaces, which, we can assume just for sake of addressing your point.
The Crusher Feat still allows you to knock them up. Because they're still in an otherwise unoccupied space. And you moved them 5'.
The feat doesn't specify a direct, and so no amount of rules lawyering gets you to where you're trying to go with this. Just homebrew it if you have a problem with it. But be courteous to your players and let them know you're doing so before they make their character.
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.
Yeah, d&d terminologies are messed up.
What's clear is that a creature's space relates to an area. The only difference with a flying creature is that it occupies it at altitude.
A rider on a horse can occupy the same space, so can two gnomes in a trenchcoat, so can a barbarian and a high-level druid, wildshaped and flying high overhead. In d&d the space is the area.
5e has its rules yet this has not happened.
Crusher feat "allows you to knock them" "to an unoccupied space".
The 5e understanding of Space as used by DMs like Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford says:
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If four Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there's little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
You literally said spaces do not have height....so a 200ft flying creature exists next to the goliath swinging a sword at it on the ground since its within 5ft horizontally.
If thats not what you meant then I believe you need to do a better job explaining what you actually mean?
Yes, this is what I've been saying. For pages. It's just that some people have a hard time grasping this concept.
There is the geographical concept of "space", and there is the game's definition of space: an area a creature effectively controls in combat. The feat may not care how the target enters that unoccupied space, but they must enter that unoccupied space. The problem with vertical movement is you must determine where the space begins. And 5E has no rules for where a space might begin or end vertically. This likely has something to do with different creatures of the same Size having different relative dimensions. We can see this plainly enough with the rules for a high jump in the previous chapter of the PHB. Different creatures can reach different heights above their heads. So the vertical limits of a given creature's space are left undefined for a DM to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis. This makes sense.
Rules as written, this means that unless the upper limit of a creature's vertical space is actually 5 feet, you cannot knock them up 5 feet into another unoccupied space. Because without that imaginary plane, the space does not exist. That space must be defined, and that space must be uniform or else some characters can be affected this way and others cannot. So, either a gnome and goliath occupy the same space or they don't. And if that space is arbitrarily capped at a 5-foot cube, then the goliath is standing taller than their occupied space. And they do not, cannot, control the space from their shoulders and up; not even if they can swing a weapon up there. There are actual implications to how the game is played if this train of thought is taken to its logical conclusion.
And some people just do not care.
By your logic then a creature who can jump 20 ft in the air straight up never leaves it's space as long as it never moves horizontal?
So you can jump 20ft in the air and not take attacks of opportunity?
Your logic makes little sense from a game perspective.
Whether you consider a 5e Space to have height or not is irrelevant.
Whether you consider an area to have height or not is irrelevant.
A 5e Space is an area.
That's the definition given.
Sorry.
That's the definition given in RAW.
If you can't work it out, we can't help you.
Vertical distance and heights are still widely discussed such as in PHb chapter 8 on climbing, jumping and swimming.
The PHb section on Movement and Position covers the topic of flight.
You fly in or between areas (aka 5e spaces) at positions of height.
You still don't address how having no height makes any logical sense as obviously you can't attack a creature 200ft up vertically but only 5ft horizontal.
You can't... So obviously height is part of space
The text does not say that "the only spaces that exist are spaces occupied by creatures". It just gives reference to "A creature's space".
The amount of space required by a creature relates to the creature's size. a tiny creature requires a space sized 2 1/2 by 2 1/2 ft while a gargantuan creature requires a space sized 20 by 20 ft. or larger. "Larger creatures take up more space". Space is something that creatures take up, but that does not mean that space can't exist without a creature.
I was arguing that "the 5e understanding of Space as used by DMs like Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford" has not resulted in worlds brimming with tarrasques.
A 5e space (an area) can exist as per RAW, but that does not stop someone jumping, climbing, swimming or, given the ability, flying. How could it?
There are rules that explain all these things.
Simple Ranged Weapons include the light crossbow, a commonly available piece of adventuring gear which, with a range of 80/320 and according to RAW, will allow you to shoot at a creature 200ft up vertically at disadvantage. Distance is the term used in 5e and, as the creature remains in long-range for weapons like the light crossbow, it can potentially be hit.
Space in 5e means area.
It is:
"you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space"
Not:
"you can move it to an unoccupied space within 5 feet"
Permission is granted to move them 5'. But you can only move them 5' into an unoccupied space.
Stop trying to argue that the feat allows you to move them to a space, which must be within 5 feet. It is inherently incorrect and disingenuous argument.
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.
Gnomes are small creatures, they cannot occupy each other’s space any longer than it takes one of them to move into the others space and then move to a different space. Creatures of the same size cannot continue to occupy the same space unless another rule says so.
No, it isn't incorrect or disingenuous. Frankly, I'm not sure you understand the meanings of those two words. The two sentences you presented as examples are functionally identical and lay out the same criteria and outcomes. You're arguing nothing.
It is true that permission is granted, once per turn, to move a compatible target 5 feet. It is also true their destination must be an unoccupied space. And because they can only be moved 5 feet, that unoccupied space must be within 5 feet. You can't have one without the other. If they continue to move more than 5 feet, it is because something else has forced that movement. Moving horizontally, whether it's in Cardinal directions or at a diagonal, is well understood. It's the moving along the Z-axis that has people confused because there are no rules for the Z-axis.
The issue has always been people not grasping that the rules clearly define what a space is. Space is an area. Moving upward does not change that area. Diagonally theoretically can change the area, but that's where it can get weird. If you can move a target up at a 45 degree angle onto a ledge, they'll land and stay on their feet. If you can knock them up to artificially extend the height of a fall, they'll take an extra 1d6 fall damage. But it comes across as dishonest because that's not the height they started their turn at. If you're trying to cheese the system, that's up for the DM to allow. But it certainly isn't RAW, and this is a RAW forum.
Also, the DMG Pg 248 has a handy chart going over relative size of creatures specifically regarding height. There’s further guidance a few pages later with recommendations regarding vertical game play.
I think a more interesting issue that I noticed about the feat after staring at these posts fir days is as follows:
• Increase your Strength or Constitution by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• 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.
• When you score a critical hit that deals bludgeoning damage to a creature, attack rolls against that creature are made with advantage until the start ofyour next turn.
the bold and underlined portion says we can move a creature 5ft to an unoccupied space, so long as it’s not more than 1 size larger than the feat used. Let us consider a medium creature attacking a large creature. A larger creature takes up more than 5ft of space. This means that even within the workings of the feat, a large or larger creature can never actually be moved to an unoccupied space. A large or larger creature cannot be moved 5ft to an unoccupied space as the distance isn’t far enough for the target creature to move out of the space the target creature is already occupying. There’s also the fact that moving a large or larger creature means that it can never move to a single 5ft space, as it always takes up multiple.
words…
That is because an unoccupied space has no defined area. A creature can step one foot to the side and it's space moves with it, it's only when a grid is used that one foot movement doesn't work. Moving a creature 5 feet into an unoccupied area just moves it's occupied space 5 feet with it. Outside of the optional grid rule two medium creatures can stand 65 inches from each other and there would be 5 inches between their occupied spaces with another medium creature standing 6 feet away centered between the other two forming a triangle. Also that's only during combat, outside of combat creatures only occupy their physical space like objects unless there is hostilities.
Certainly you can. Remember, the core rules do not assume a grid. Any creature, no matter how tall, on a flat plain has unoccupied space above it and in every horizontal direction, no matter how wide.
Something that may be tripping you up here is that "occupied" and "unoccupied" aren't defined anywhere - there's 5E "common English" terms - and the same is true of "space". Even when you hit the PHB's rules discussion of "space" on pages 191-192, what you get is the definition of a creature's space (not the general definition of space, mind), and immediately following that, the squeezing rules, covering e.g. a Large creature squeezing through a space large enough for a Medium creature - a space that can't be a creature's space, since a creature can't invade another creature's space.
"Space" is accordingly just what it says it is, since we have to work with common English. Consider the L6 Conjurer ability, Benign Transposition. You could use that to teleport e.g. into a glass box, if you wanted, even if the box was smaller than 5x5x5 - supposing you're pretty small, like a Halfling, you won't even be uncomfortable. You could also, and this is apparently relevant to this thread because I still see people making the nonsensical claim that space doesn't exist vertically, use it to teleport 30 feet straight up, because of course there's space above you. There's space everywhere. Some of it is occupied and some of it isn't, and some of it is visible and some of it isn't, but there's an infinite amount of space around you at all times in every direction.
Sorry about mentioning the gnomes.
While in combat creatures of the same size cannot continue to occupy the same space but, while in a trenchcoat, that may not be the gnomes priority.
Out of 5e combat, creatures can certainly occupy the same space. For instance, i t was likely in this kind of close proximity that our mummies and daddies made us.
Whether in or out of combat, space in 5e remains descriptive of area.
Personally, I would allow one character to stand on another character, say, to shoot over a wall. I certain consequence would be that that character below would have limited if not negated abilities while the character above might be at disadvantage.