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…
We are 13 pages in on a pointless thread and you are writing to deliver "words…".
"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."
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
You move it. It's in transit. The space is no longer occupied. The creature has left the space. It moves 5 ft and into that then unoccupied space. It's either that or you negate any option of moving a large or larger creature. "moving a large or larger creature means that it can never move to a single 5ft space". Irrelevant.
A space can involve multiple squares according to both your PHb reference as well as the handy DMG reference you've just given:
A creature’s size determines how much space [singular] it occupies on squares [plural] or hexes [plural], as shown in the Creature Size and Space table. If the miniature you use for a monster takes up an amount of space different from what’s on the table, that’s fine, but treat the monster as its official size for all other rules. For example, you might use a miniature that has a Large base to represent a Huge giant. That giant takes up less space on the battlefield than its size suggests, but it is still Huge for the purposes of rules like grappling.
Creature Size and Space
Size
Space: Squares
Space: Hexes
Tiny
4 per square
4 per hex
Small
1 square
1 hex
Medium
1 square
1 hex
Large
4 squares (2 by 2)
3 hexes
Huge
9 squares (3 by 3)
7 hexes
Gargantuan
16 squares (4 by 4) or more
12 hexes or more
A space [singular] for a Large creature would necessarily functionally cover 4 squares [plural] (2 by 2) 3 hexes [plural] A space [singular] for a Huge creature would necessarily functionally cover 9 squares [plural] (3 by 3) 7 hexes [plural] A space [singular] for a Gargantuan creature would necessarily functionally cover 16 squares [plural] (4 by 4) or more [plural]
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.
You are making my point. That creatures occupy space is irrelevant to whether there are spaces they could move into and whether those spaces are above them or not.
If there is no space above a creature, then there is nowhere for them to jump to and therefore no ability to jump. Arguing that they have defined the space said creature occupies at any given time does not preclude the existence of spaces that creature does not occupy.
The Tarrasque analogy was just an alternative means a DM could use of proving the existence of those otherwise empty spaces.
Why are you mentioning a definition irrelevant to this discussion, when you admit that unoccupied spaces do exist and do exist on more than just a horizontal plane?
You raise a thought-provoking issue. Thank-you.
The way I see it is that a 5e space requires a means of support. If a character can fly or if there are positions that they can climb or clamber onto then, effectively, the options of spaces they can move to increases. If the character can't fly and if there is nothing to mount or climb then, in effect, there are no spaces that they can move to above them.
A creature that can fly can consider a position above them as a space that they could potentially fill thanks to their ability to fly.
A creature that cannot fly cannot consider a position above them as a space that they could fill because they would fall.
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.
You are making my point. That creatures occupy space is irrelevant to whether there are spaces they could move into and whether those spaces are above them or not.
If there is no space above a creature, then there is nowhere for them to jump to and therefore no ability to jump. Arguing that they have defined the space said creature occupies at any given time does not preclude the existence of spaces that creature does not occupy.
The Tarrasque analogy was just an alternative means a DM could use of proving the existence of those otherwise empty spaces.
Why are you mentioning a definition irrelevant to this discussion, when you admit that unoccupied spaces do exist and do exist on more than just a horizontal plane?
You raise a thought-provoking issue. Thank-you.
The way I see it is that a 5e space requires a means of support. If a character can fly or if there are positions that they can climb or clamber onto then, effectively, the options of spaces they can move to increases. If the character can't fly and if there is nothing to mount or climb then, in effect, there are no spaces that they can move to above them.
A creature that can fly can consider a position above them as a space that they could potentially fill thanks to their ability to fly.
A creature that cannot fly cannot consider a position above them as a space that they could fill because they would fall.
Not having a practical means to reach a point in space does not equate to it not existing. The very concept implies that immobilizing someone destroys spaces.
The RAW section on Movement and Position refers to "The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping. Here we read that "When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump." A character with an exceptional 20 strength, believe it or not, can jump 15 ft. If that character then does not have some ability to stop them from doing so, they'll fall. The position exists, but not as the type of 5e space that the non-flying creature can occupy let alone "control". It can't even stop itself from falling. There can be a vast range of potential positions in 5e. They can only become your occupied space if you have a means of support.
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.
I think you misread my post and possibly conflated it with other posts and/or confused me with another poster you we both have been arguing against. I was pointing out exactly that logical flaw to the person I was responding to. That poster was not you.
Not having a practical means to reach a point in space does not equate to it not existing. The very concept implies that immobilizing someone destroys spaces.
The RAW section on Movement and Position refers to "The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping. Here we read that "When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump." A character with an exceptional 20 strength, believe it or not, can jump 15 ft. If that character then does not have some ability to stop them from doing so, they'll fall. The position exists, but not as the type of 5e space that the non-flying creature can occupy let alone "control". It can't even stop itself from falling. There can be a vast range of potential positions in 5e. They can only become your occupied space if you have a means of support.
This is certainly one of, if not the biggest, pitfalls of having everything loosely abstracted as it is. The only solid definition of space the game is concerned with is along a horizontal plane. If you're astride a warhorse, you're not on the ground. You're technically X feet up off the ground. But you share the animal's space, so to speak, and can attack from any of it's squares. And for all intents and purposes, you're within striking distance of anything that can reach into whichever square you're in; as well as ranged attacks where you fall within the attack's effective range.
Similarly a manticore that is 80 feet up in the air and 60 feet out horizontally is only 80 feet away, not 100 feet. Yes, you read that correctly, the Pythagorean Theorem doesn't apply. This is because the math is non-Euclidean; which was a change implemented in 4E. So a creature's "space" might be adjacent to yours, but differences in respective altitude keep them away and out of range/reach. The game engine simply doesn't care about vertical layers or where the ceiling of a "space" might end so another can begin. All that matters is the larger number: height or horizontal distance.
This is why I keep saying you cannot move a creature up into an unoccupied space. Vertically, spaces don't exist as a game concept. There is just space, the area a creature occupies, and its relative altitude or depth.
On one hand, it's wonderfully simplistic and speeds up play. On the other hand, adults have a hard time thinking in simplistic terms and needlessly overcomplicate matters; resulting discussions that devolve into utter headaches.
The RAW section on Movement and Position refers to "The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping. Here we read that "When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump." A character with an exceptional 20 strength, believe it or not, can jump 15 ft. If that character then does not have some ability to stop them from doing so, they'll fall. The position exists, but not as the type of 5e space that the non-flying creature can occupy let alone "control". It can't even stop itself from falling. There can be a vast range of potential positions in 5e. They can only become your occupied space if you have a means of support.
This is certainly one of, if not the biggest, pitfalls of having everything loosely abstracted as it is. The only solid definition of space the game is concerned with is along a horizontal plane. If you're astride a warhorse, you're not on the ground. You're technically X feet up off the ground. But you share the animal's space, so to speak, and can attack from any of it's squares. And for all intents and purposes, you're within striking distance of anything that can reach into whichever square you're in; as well as ranged attacks where you fall within the attack's effective range.
Similarly a manticore that is 80 feet up in the air and 60 feet out horizontally is only 80 feet away, not 100 feet. Yes, you read that correctly, the Pythagorean Theorem doesn't apply. This is because the math is non-Euclidean; which was a change implemented in 4E. So a creature's "space" might be adjacent to yours, but differences in respective altitude keep them away and out of range/reach. The game engine simply doesn't care about vertical layers or where the ceiling of a "space" might end so another can begin. All that matters is the larger number: height or horizontal distance.
This is why I keep saying you cannot move a creature up into an unoccupied space. Vertically, spaces don't exist as a game concept. There is just space, the area a creature occupies, and its relative altitude or depth.
On one hand, it's wonderfully simplistic and speeds up play. On the other hand, adults have a hard time thinking in simplistic terms and needlessly overcomplicate matters; resulting discussions that devolve into utter headaches.
To keep things simple it may be possible to consider creatures in three types in their relationship to Movement and Position. * creatures that can fly or, by other means, rise up in the air, * creatures that can hold their breath or breathe in a fluid or that otherwise don't need to breathe, * the rest. (further complications come with creatures that burrow, that can meld through solids or that can become insubstantial, but we've got enough going on as it is). Creatures that can fly can go up to any height that they are able. Creatures that can survive underneath the surface of a fluid can go to any depth that they are able. The rest will typically move or remain on top of a solid surface or swim or float at the level of a liquid surface. In whatever position a creature may have been able to get to, that will be their space. At least that's how it works within RAW.
Again, the problem with your logic is the assumption that since no other space is mentioned, that it therefore does not exist. ...
I think you're confusing a difference in word choice with a problem with logic.
Matter fills 5Es physical 3 dimensions and creatures can move to any position within them that they are able. In plain English, this constitutes "space" yet the linguistic problem is that 5e ascribes a specific definition to that term. The only difference is that you're insisting that we use it beyond the 5e definition. Beyond that, we don't differ.
Again, the problem with your logic is the assumption that since no other space is mentioned, that it therefore does not exist. ...
I think you're confusing a difference in word choice with a problem with logic.
Matter fills 5Es physical 3 dimensions and creatures can move to any position within them that they are able. In plain English, this constitutes "space" yet the linguistic problem is that 5e ascribes a specific definition to that term. The only difference is that you're insisting that we use it beyond the 5e definition. Beyond that, we don't differ.
The difference is that you two are taking a definition that is part of the 'How big are creatures?' section and somehow convincing yourselves that said section applies to all uses of the word 'space' no matter how far from that context.
That said section describing how much area any given creature is deemed to take up exists does not mean the entire rest of the English language (including other definitions of the word 'space') does not exist or does not have any in game meaning. The game is written in English and it is assumed that players have a basic grasp of the English language and do not need the more general concept of space specifically explained to them.
We are definitely talking about the general concept of space. The terms I'm choosing to use, as fitting RAW 5e terminology, relate to position. We're talking about the same thing - but you don't get to dictate the words I use. I'm keeping my uses of the 5e term space in their correct contexts.
"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.
They're not identical and the fact you don't see the difference is why you're having difficulty here.
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.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, it is just irrelevant.
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.
You're arguing my point for me here. You just aren't connecting the dots for some reason.
Is the space above a creature occupied, or unoccupied? Simple question. Is the space directly above occupied or unoccupied?
It is unoccupied.
Crusher doesn't move them into a different space within 5'. Crusher allows you to move them 5', so long as that is into an unoccupied space.
So long as the space is unoccupied: You move them 5'.
So long as the space is within 5': You move them.
Really look at the different condition and permission these two, similar sure, but different ways of expressing this actually would work.
IF it were phrased as in 2. So long as the space was unoccupied and within 5', you could move them into it. <--- The argument for being able to move them into the air is entirely absent here. At no point is it giving us permission to do so. It only grants permission to move them into the space itself.
But, now take another look at how it is actually written. It grants us permission to move them 5'. It doesn't tell us a direction, only that the destination must be somewhere inside an unoccupied space. So, we can move them any direction we want to, because the permission was to: Move them 5'.
Not having a practical means to reach a point in space does not equate to it not existing. The very concept implies that immobilizing someone destroys spaces.
The RAW section on Movement and Position refers to "The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping. Here we read that "When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump." A character with an exceptional 20 strength, believe it or not, can jump 15 ft. If that character then does not have some ability to stop them from doing so, they'll fall. The position exists, but not as the type of 5e space that the non-flying creature can occupy let alone "control". It can't even stop itself from falling. There can be a vast range of potential positions in 5e. They can only become your occupied space if you have a means of support.
This is certainly one of, if not the biggest, pitfalls of having everything loosely abstracted as it is. The only solid definition of space the game is concerned with is along a horizontal plane. If you're astride a warhorse, you're not on the ground. You're technically X feet up off the ground. But you share the animal's space, so to speak, and can attack from any of it's squares. And for all intents and purposes, you're within striking distance of anything that can reach into whichever square you're in; as well as ranged attacks where you fall within the attack's effective range.
Similarly a manticore that is 80 feet up in the air and 60 feet out horizontally is only 80 feet away, not 100 feet. Yes, you read that correctly, the Pythagorean Theorem doesn't apply. This is because the math is non-Euclidean; which was a change implemented in 4E. So a creature's "space" might be adjacent to yours, but differences in respective altitude keep them away and out of range/reach. The game engine simply doesn't care about vertical layers or where the ceiling of a "space" might end so another can begin. All that matters is the larger number: height or horizontal distance.
This is why I keep saying you cannot move a creature up into an unoccupied space. Vertically, spaces don't exist as a game concept. There is just space, the area a creature occupies, and its relative altitude or depth.
On one hand, it's wonderfully simplistic and speeds up play. On the other hand, adults have a hard time thinking in simplistic terms and needlessly overcomplicate matters; resulting discussions that devolve into utter headaches.
Well explained. I see your reasoning.
But, just reconsider what crusher is saying. The actual text. Again, we're going to adopt your understanding here. No vertical spaces exist. Fine. We can assume this for the sake of argument. 100%. But now let's relook at crusher.
You are very close to understanding this thing. Genuinely. If you see the difference between those two phrases above I think you have it.
You're not moving them into: a vertical space 5' away.
Instead, you're moving them 5' up, into: An adjacent space.
Think about this: If a creature has a fly speed. Could it fly 5' up? Would that be moving 5'? Would that be moving into an unoccupied space?
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.
Not having a practical means to reach a point in space does not equate to it not existing. The very concept implies that immobilizing someone destroys spaces.
The RAW section on Movement and Position refers to "The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping. Here we read that "When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump." A character with an exceptional 20 strength, believe it or not, can jump 15 ft. If that character then does not have some ability to stop them from doing so, they'll fall. The position exists, but not as the type of 5e space that the non-flying creature can occupy let alone "control". It can't even stop itself from falling. There can be a vast range of potential positions in 5e. They can only become your occupied space if you have a means of support.
This is certainly one of, if not the biggest, pitfalls of having everything loosely abstracted as it is. The only solid definition of space the game is concerned with is along a horizontal plane. If you're astride a warhorse, you're not on the ground. You're technically X feet up off the ground. But you share the animal's space, so to speak, and can attack from any of it's squares. And for all intents and purposes, you're within striking distance of anything that can reach into whichever square you're in; as well as ranged attacks where you fall within the attack's effective range.
Similarly a manticore that is 80 feet up in the air and 60 feet out horizontally is only 80 feet away, not 100 feet. Yes, you read that correctly, the Pythagorean Theorem doesn't apply. This is because the math is non-Euclidean; which was a change implemented in 4E. So a creature's "space" might be adjacent to yours, but differences in respective altitude keep them away and out of range/reach. The game engine simply doesn't care about vertical layers or where the ceiling of a "space" might end so another can begin. All that matters is the larger number: height or horizontal distance.
This is why I keep saying you cannot move a creature up into an unoccupied space. Vertically, spaces don't exist as a game concept. There is just space, the area a creature occupies, and its relative altitude or depth.
On one hand, it's wonderfully simplistic and speeds up play. On the other hand, adults have a hard time thinking in simplistic terms and needlessly overcomplicate matters; resulting discussions that devolve into utter headaches.
Well explained. I see your reasoning.
But, just reconsider what crusher is saying. The actual text. Again, we're going to adopt your understanding here. No vertical spaces exist. Fine. We can assume this for the sake of argument. 100%. But now let's relook at crusher.
You are very close to understanding this thing. Genuinely. If you see the difference between those two phrases above I think you have it.
You're not moving them into: a vertical space 5' away.
Instead, you're moving them 5' up, into: An adjacent space. ...
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.
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. ...
RAW, all you do is move the creature "to" a different space that it would "effectively control. in combat".
No parallel physical feat has a vertical element and there is no reason to suppose this one does either.
Think about this: If a creature has a fly speed. Could it fly 5' up? Would that be moving 5'? Would that be moving into an unoccupied space?
If the creature you are hitting is on the ground, even if it had a fly speed, there would have to be a reason why it would want to use it.
Not having a practical means to reach a point in space does not equate to it not existing. The very concept implies that immobilizing someone destroys spaces.
The RAW section on Movement and Position refers to "The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping. Here we read that "When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump." A character with an exceptional 20 strength, believe it or not, can jump 15 ft. If that character then does not have some ability to stop them from doing so, they'll fall. The position exists, but not as the type of 5e space that the non-flying creature can occupy let alone "control". It can't even stop itself from falling. There can be a vast range of potential positions in 5e. They can only become your occupied space if you have a means of support.
This is certainly one of, if not the biggest, pitfalls of having everything loosely abstracted as it is. The only solid definition of space the game is concerned with is along a horizontal plane. If you're astride a warhorse, you're not on the ground. You're technically X feet up off the ground. But you share the animal's space, so to speak, and can attack from any of it's squares. And for all intents and purposes, you're within striking distance of anything that can reach into whichever square you're in; as well as ranged attacks where you fall within the attack's effective range.
Similarly a manticore that is 80 feet up in the air and 60 feet out horizontally is only 80 feet away, not 100 feet. Yes, you read that correctly, the Pythagorean Theorem doesn't apply. This is because the math is non-Euclidean; which was a change implemented in 4E. So a creature's "space" might be adjacent to yours, but differences in respective altitude keep them away and out of range/reach. The game engine simply doesn't care about vertical layers or where the ceiling of a "space" might end so another can begin. All that matters is the larger number: height or horizontal distance.
This is why I keep saying you cannot move a creature up into an unoccupied space. Vertically, spaces don't exist as a game concept. There is just space, the area a creature occupies, and its relative altitude or depth.
On one hand, it's wonderfully simplistic and speeds up play. On the other hand, adults have a hard time thinking in simplistic terms and needlessly overcomplicate matters; resulting discussions that devolve into utter headaches.
Well explained. I see your reasoning.
But, just reconsider what crusher is saying. The actual text. Again, we're going to adopt your understanding here. No vertical spaces exist. Fine. We can assume this for the sake of argument. 100%. But now let's relook at crusher.
You are very close to understanding this thing. Genuinely. If you see the difference between those two phrases above I think you have it.
You're not moving them into: a vertical space 5' away.
Instead, you're moving them 5' up, into: An adjacent space. ...
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.
Yes. You move them 5 ft. It must be into an unoccupied space.
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions.
Right. So the unoccupied space that you're moving them into must simply not be blocked by objects and have no creature controlling it. "Up" seems to fit that requirement to me.
RAW, all you do is move the creature "to" a different space that it would "effectively control. in combat".
Sure, sounds good. They control a new space and are now 5' up.
No parallel physical feat has a vertical element and there is no reason to suppose this one does either.
Oh, this one does because it gives you permission to move them 5'. (edit: also this statement of yours is objectively untrue, plenty of physical abilities have vertical components)
Think about this: If a creature has a fly speed. Could it fly 5' up? Would that be moving 5'? Would that be moving into an unoccupied space?
If the creature you are hitting is on the ground, even if it had a fly speed, there would have to be a reason why it would want to use it.
You misunderstood what was said, there.
A creature, on its turn, who has a fly speed, decides to fly up 5'. Can it do that? Yes. Did it move 5'? Yes. Did it move into an unoccupied space? Yes.
These are all the same things you're allowed to do with crusher. You move someone 5'. Up is is a direction you can move 5'. Is that an unoccupied space? Yep.
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 order to have an adjacent space, the spaces need to have an established boundary. And spaces, by the game's definition, do not have a floor or ceiling. They abstractly exist at a distance relative to the ground or water level. So X feet straight up or down cannot, by definition, be an adjacent space. The boundaries, as imaginary as they are, only exist on the horizontal plane because space is a function of area, not volume.
This is why this is so hard for so many people. A flying creature that's 5 feet off the ground is occupying its space 5 feet off the ground. Sure, that makes sense. But that space isn't adjacent to any spaces that might exist above and below. Spaces exists nebulously along the Z-axis. It's not like there's an infinite number of spaces that "exist" at the 5-foot mark. If that were the case, then countless PCs and NPCs would encroach on those spaces during play.
You can maybe convince a DM to allow a diagonal upward movement, but, again, this leads to weird interactions. Like knocking someone up, onto a ledge, and still land on their feet. And the question as to how much hypothetical fall damage they could take, going over a ledge from an extra 5 feet up, is left for the DM to decide, too. Because they still started at a single height and there would be zero difference if you had just knocked them straight over, so it would read as deliberately trying to cheat the system. That said, a permissive DM may still allow for it.
In order to have an adjacent space, the spaces need to have an established boundary. And spaces, by the game's definition, do not have a floor or ceiling. They abstractly exist at a distance relative to the ground or water level. So X feet straight up or down cannot, by definition, be an adjacent space. The boundaries, as imaginary as they are, only exist on the horizontal plane because space is a function of area, not volume.
This is why this is so hard for so many people. A flying creature that's 5 feet off the ground is occupying its space 5 feet off the ground. Sure, that makes sense. But that space isn't adjacent to any spaces that might exist above and below. Spaces exists nebulously along the Z-axis. It's not like there's an infinite number of spaces that "exist" at the 5-foot mark. If that were the case, then countless PCs and NPCs would encroach on those spaces during play.
Are you saying a creature cannot walk underneath a flying creature, even if they're thousands of feet off the ground, because they control their space at the ground (or water) level?
You can maybe convince a DM to allow a diagonal upward movement, but, again, this leads to weird interactions. Like knocking someone up, onto a ledge, and still land on their feet. And the question as to how much hypothetical fall damage they could take, going over a ledge from an extra 5 feet up, is left for the DM to decide, too. Because they still started at a single height and there would be zero difference if you had just knocked them straight over, so it would read as deliberately trying to cheat the system. That said, a permissive DM may still allow for it.
Convince my DM that diagonals exist? Pretty easy sell.
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 order to have an adjacent space, the spaces need to have an established boundary. And spaces, by the game's definition, do not have a floor or ceiling. They abstractly exist at a distance relative to the ground or water level. So X feet straight up or down cannot, by definition, be an adjacent space. The boundaries, as imaginary as they are, only exist on the horizontal plane because space is a function of area, not volume.
This is why this is so hard for so many people. A flying creature that's 5 feet off the ground is occupying its space 5 feet off the ground. Sure, that makes sense. But that space isn't adjacent to any spaces that might exist above and below. Spaces exists nebulously along the Z-axis. It's not like there's an infinite number of spaces that "exist" at the 5-foot mark. If that were the case, then countless PCs and NPCs would encroach on those spaces during play.
Are you saying a creature cannot walk underneath a flying creature, even if they're thousands of feet off the ground, because they control their space at the ground (or water) level?
No, and it's insulting that you would ask that. A creature's space only exists at whatever its height is, so it can only control that space. Some creatures can share a space, like when you're atop a riding horse or some other mount.
A far better question would be can you walk underneath a creature flying only 5 feet above the ground.
Space clearly has definitions other than a creature's space. I present for your reading pleasure, the Rod of Security. In particular, the 2nd sentence: "The rod then instantly transports you and up to 199 other willing creatures you can see to a paradise that exists in an extraplanar space." That's up to 200 creatures, of any size, in 1 space.
.... 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.
That bit about mums and dads reminded me too much of mounted combat… lol
RAW, all you do is move the creature "to" a different space that it would "effectively control. in combat".
Sure, sounds good. They control a new space and are now 5' up.
The feat says nothing about 5 ft up. It just says "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". You can't control a space 5 ft up if you can't fly.
If, on the other hand, you and your opponent were flying (say, for instance, you were fighting a pegasus) I'd also allow you to knock such an opponent either 5 ft up or 5 ft down but that would just be a personal view and this only on the interpretation that they were carrying their own weight.
No parallel physical feat has a vertical element and there is no reason to suppose this one does either.
Oh, this one does because it gives you permission to move them 5'. (edit: also this statement of yours is objectively untrue, plenty of physical abilities have vertical components).
If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line immediately before taking this bonus action, you either gain a +5 bonus to the attack's damage roll (if you chose to make a melee attack and hit) or push the target up to 10 feet away from you (if you chose to shove and you succeed).
If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
All Crusher says that it allows you to do is that:
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.
If you want to try to convince your DM that this allows you to knock an opponent potentially one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft, go ahead. I just think that the idea would be ridiculous in any scenario that made attempts at physical realism. If you're working towards a cartoon or video game type scenario, perhaps anything goes.
I just think that the idea would be ridiculous in any scenario that made attempts at physical realism.
And there's the problem. No where in the rules does it state 5E makes any attempt at physical realism. The designers are tabletop geeks, not rocket scientists. Each character moves rapidly during its turn, but then stands there while the other characters do thier thing (except possibly taking 1 reaction). By the rules on falling stated here, many sports are impossible since the ball would immediately & instantly fall to the ground. Forget home runs, you'll never get the baseball past the pitcher! There are so many 5E rules that make no sense in the real world, because the designers designed the game for fun, not for realism. So if you're looking for a high level of realism, I humbly suggest that D&D is not the game for you. It is not designed to scratch that itch.
... If you want to try to convince your DM that this allows you to knock an opponent potentially one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft, go ahead. I just think that the idea would be ridiculous in any scenario that made attempts at physical realism. If you're working towards a cartoon or video game type scenario, perhaps anything goes.
And there's the problem. No where in the rules does it state 5E makes any attempt at physical realism. The designers are tabletop geeks, not rocket scientists. Each character moves rapidly during its turn, but then stands there while the other characters do thier thing (except possibly taking 1 reaction). By the rules on falling stated here, many sports are impossible since the ball would immediately & instantly fall to the ground. Forget home runs, you'll never get the baseball past the pitcher! There are so many 5E rules that make no sense in the real world, because the designers designed the game for fun, not for realism. So if you're looking for a high level of realism, I humbly suggest that D&D is not the game for you. It is not designed to scratch that itch.
Nowhere in the rules does it state that 5e hasn't made attempts at physical realism. Not that I use them, but the game even contains optional rules for making realism gritty.
People are free to choose their own style, view and even idea of gaming.
Tabletop geeks are the best people to design tabletop games.
RAW based 5e satisfies my itch very well.
If someone pushes a ruling on what RAW is saying that I think is wrong or exploitative, I'll argue against it.
If someone says that I've said something that's objectively untrue, if that's not the case then I'll set them straight.
If I make a mistake, as with the gnomes mentioned a couple of posts ago, I'll admit it.
I just think that the idea would be ridiculous in any scenario that made attempts at physical realism.
And there's the problem. No where in the rules does it state 5E makes any attempt at physical realism. The designers are tabletop geeks, not rocket scientists. Each character moves rapidly during its turn, but then stands there while the other characters do thier thing (except possibly taking 1 reaction). By the rules on falling stated here, many sports are impossible since the ball would immediately & instantly fall to the ground. Forget home runs, you'll never get the baseball past the pitcher! There are so many 5E rules that make no sense in the real world, because the designers designed the game for fun, not for realism. So if you're looking for a high level of realism, I humbly suggest that D&D is not the game for you. It is not designed to scratch that itch.
And your counter-example fails, since ranged and thrown weapons do not fall directly to the ground the second they leave the bow or hand and long jumps have actual jumping distances rather than the jumper landing immediately getting nowhere.
Falling distance is actually the approximate distance one falls in normal gravity in 6 seconds. It is treated as instantaneous the same way any other movement is, but would still trigger an attack of opportunity if the faller fell close enough past some other creature.
And that baseball does not seem to fall only because (a) it is thrown slightly up to compensate for gravity and (b) it is less than one second in flight. Remember it does still either hit the ground quickly or get hit by the bat slightly quicker.
You might have skipped the part where I stated "By the rules on falling stated here". No where did I say those rules were actually RAW. Per this thread, falling happens not just instantly, but the fall itself happens instantly. The instant the Crusher effect ends, the target instantly falls to the ground, no time for a Action or Bonus Action. So the instant the Swing Bat action ends, the baseball immediately plummets to the earth, per the rules as stated in this thread, no time to move under the ball or perform a Catch action. Except, as you noted, that's not how physics actually works. Inertia / momentum is a thing. Players in the outfield clearly have plenty of time to run across the field and casually catch the ball. The batter runs all the way to first base, if he's lucky. Which, by the way, is 90' away from home. Apparently every MLB player is a Monk?
Jumping is wierd because you can have a jump distance greater than your remaining movement. RAW, what happens when a character with 5' of movement remaining uses a jump of 10'? Do they jump 5' & then hang in midair until thier next turn? Do they go the whole 10' & land (maybe losing 5' of movement from thier next turn)? Jump 5' & land (but why, I can jump 10')?
Also, track the time in a MLB game from when the bat hits the ball to when a home run (or even almost home run) is caught or hits the ground. That's considerably longer than 1 second. Might even be longer than 6 seconds under the best conditions, but I couldn't find any info on the net to confirm that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We are 13 pages in on a pointless thread and you are writing to deliver "words…".
"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."
You move it. It's in transit. The space is no longer occupied. The creature has left the space. It moves 5 ft and into that then unoccupied space.
It's either that or you negate any option of moving a large or larger creature.
"moving a large or larger creature means that it can never move to a single 5ft space". Irrelevant.
A space can involve multiple squares according to both your PHb reference as well as the handy DMG reference you've just given:
Creature Size on Squares and Hexes
A creature’s size determines how much space [singular] it occupies on squares [plural] or hexes [plural], as shown in the Creature Size and Space table. If the miniature you use for a monster takes up an amount of space different from what’s on the table, that’s fine, but treat the monster as its official size for all other rules. For example, you might use a miniature that has a Large base to represent a Huge giant. That giant takes up less space on the battlefield than its size suggests, but it is still Huge for the purposes of rules like grappling.
Creature Size and Space
A space [singular] for a Large creature would necessarily functionally cover 4 squares [plural] (2 by 2) 3 hexes [plural]
A space [singular] for a Huge creature would necessarily functionally cover 9 squares [plural] (3 by 3) 7 hexes [plural]
A space [singular] for a Gargantuan creature would necessarily functionally cover 16 squares [plural] (4 by 4) or more [plural]
You raise a thought-provoking issue. Thank-you.
The way I see it is that a 5e space requires a means of support. If a character can fly or if there are positions that they can climb or clamber onto then, effectively, the options of spaces they can move to increases. If the character can't fly and if there is nothing to mount or climb then, in effect, there are no spaces that they can move to above them.
A creature that can fly can consider a position above them as a space that they could potentially fill thanks to their ability to fly.
A creature that cannot fly cannot consider a position above them as a space that they could fill because they would fall.
The RAW section on Movement and Position refers to "The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping. Here we read that "When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump." A character with an exceptional 20 strength, believe it or not, can jump 15 ft. If that character then does not have some ability to stop them from doing so, they'll fall.
The position exists, but not as the type of 5e space that the non-flying creature can occupy let alone "control".
It can't even stop itself from falling.
There can be a vast range of potential positions in 5e. They can only become your occupied space if you have a means of support.
Ah sorry!
This is certainly one of, if not the biggest, pitfalls of having everything loosely abstracted as it is. The only solid definition of space the game is concerned with is along a horizontal plane. If you're astride a warhorse, you're not on the ground. You're technically X feet up off the ground. But you share the animal's space, so to speak, and can attack from any of it's squares. And for all intents and purposes, you're within striking distance of anything that can reach into whichever square you're in; as well as ranged attacks where you fall within the attack's effective range.
Similarly a manticore that is 80 feet up in the air and 60 feet out horizontally is only 80 feet away, not 100 feet. Yes, you read that correctly, the Pythagorean Theorem doesn't apply. This is because the math is non-Euclidean; which was a change implemented in 4E. So a creature's "space" might be adjacent to yours, but differences in respective altitude keep them away and out of range/reach. The game engine simply doesn't care about vertical layers or where the ceiling of a "space" might end so another can begin. All that matters is the larger number: height or horizontal distance.
This is why I keep saying you cannot move a creature up into an unoccupied space. Vertically, spaces don't exist as a game concept. There is just space, the area a creature occupies, and its relative altitude or depth.
On one hand, it's wonderfully simplistic and speeds up play. On the other hand, adults have a hard time thinking in simplistic terms and needlessly overcomplicate matters; resulting discussions that devolve into utter headaches.
To keep things simple it may be possible to consider creatures in three types in their relationship to Movement and Position.
* creatures that can fly or, by other means, rise up in the air,
* creatures that can hold their breath or breathe in a fluid or that otherwise don't need to breathe,
* the rest.
(further complications come with creatures that burrow, that can meld through solids or that can become insubstantial, but we've got enough going on as it is).
Creatures that can fly can go up to any height that they are able.
Creatures that can survive underneath the surface of a fluid can go to any depth that they are able.
The rest will typically move or remain on top of a solid surface or swim or float at the level of a liquid surface.
In whatever position a creature may have been able to get to, that will be their space.
At least that's how it works within RAW.
I think you're confusing a difference in word choice with a problem with logic.
Matter fills 5Es physical 3 dimensions and creatures can move to any position within them that they are able. In plain English, this constitutes "space" yet the linguistic problem is that 5e ascribes a specific definition to that term. The only difference is that you're insisting that we use it beyond the 5e definition. Beyond that, we don't differ.
We are definitely talking about the general concept of space. The terms I'm choosing to use, as fitting RAW 5e terminology, relate to position. We're talking about the same thing - but you don't get to dictate the words I use. I'm keeping my uses of the 5e term space in their correct contexts.
They're not identical and the fact you don't see the difference is why you're having difficulty here.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, it is just irrelevant.
You're arguing my point for me here. You just aren't connecting the dots for some reason.
Is the space above a creature occupied, or unoccupied? Simple question. Is the space directly above occupied or unoccupied?
It is unoccupied.
Crusher doesn't move them into a different space within 5'. Crusher allows you to move them 5', so long as that is into an unoccupied space.
Really look at the different condition and permission these two, similar sure, but different ways of expressing this actually would work.
IF it were phrased as in 2. So long as the space was unoccupied and within 5', you could move them into it. <--- The argument for being able to move them into the air is entirely absent here. At no point is it giving us permission to do so. It only grants permission to move them into the space itself.
But, now take another look at how it is actually written. It grants us permission to move them 5'. It doesn't tell us a direction, only that the destination must be somewhere inside an unoccupied space. So, we can move them any direction we want to, because the permission was to: Move them 5'.
Well explained. I see your reasoning.
But, just reconsider what crusher is saying. The actual text. Again, we're going to adopt your understanding here. No vertical spaces exist. Fine. We can assume this for the sake of argument. 100%. But now let's relook at crusher.
You are very close to understanding this thing. Genuinely. If you see the difference between those two phrases above I think you have it.
You're not moving them into: a vertical space 5' away.
Instead, you're moving them 5' up, into: An adjacent space.
Think about this: If a creature has a fly speed. Could it fly 5' up? Would that be moving 5'? Would that be moving into an unoccupied space?
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.
The wording of the crusher feat simply says:
Space
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. ...
RAW, all you do is move the creature "to" a different space that it would "effectively control. in combat".
No parallel physical feat has a vertical element and there is no reason to suppose this one does either.
If the creature you are hitting is on the ground, even if it had a fly speed, there would have to be a reason why it would want to use it.
Yes. You move them 5 ft. It must be into an unoccupied space.
Right. So the unoccupied space that you're moving them into must simply not be blocked by objects and have no creature controlling it. "Up" seems to fit that requirement to me.
Sure, sounds good. They control a new space and are now 5' up.
Oh, this one does because it gives you permission to move them 5'. (edit: also this statement of yours is objectively untrue, plenty of physical abilities have vertical components)
You misunderstood what was said, there.
A creature, on its turn, who has a fly speed, decides to fly up 5'. Can it do that? Yes. Did it move 5'? Yes. Did it move into an unoccupied space? Yes.
These are all the same things you're allowed to do with crusher. You move someone 5'. Up is is a direction you can move 5'. Is that an unoccupied space? Yep.
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.
In order to have an adjacent space, the spaces need to have an established boundary. And spaces, by the game's definition, do not have a floor or ceiling. They abstractly exist at a distance relative to the ground or water level. So X feet straight up or down cannot, by definition, be an adjacent space. The boundaries, as imaginary as they are, only exist on the horizontal plane because space is a function of area, not volume.
This is why this is so hard for so many people. A flying creature that's 5 feet off the ground is occupying its space 5 feet off the ground. Sure, that makes sense. But that space isn't adjacent to any spaces that might exist above and below. Spaces exists nebulously along the Z-axis. It's not like there's an infinite number of spaces that "exist" at the 5-foot mark. If that were the case, then countless PCs and NPCs would encroach on those spaces during play.
You can maybe convince a DM to allow a diagonal upward movement, but, again, this leads to weird interactions. Like knocking someone up, onto a ledge, and still land on their feet. And the question as to how much hypothetical fall damage they could take, going over a ledge from an extra 5 feet up, is left for the DM to decide, too. Because they still started at a single height and there would be zero difference if you had just knocked them straight over, so it would read as deliberately trying to cheat the system. That said, a permissive DM may still allow for it.
Are you saying a creature cannot walk underneath a flying creature, even if they're thousands of feet off the ground, because they control their space at the ground (or water) level?
Convince my DM that diagonals exist? Pretty easy sell.
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.
No, and it's insulting that you would ask that. A creature's space only exists at whatever its height is, so it can only control that space. Some creatures can share a space, like when you're atop a riding horse or some other mount.
A far better question would be can you walk underneath a creature flying only 5 feet above the ground.
Space clearly has definitions other than a creature's space. I present for your reading pleasure, the Rod of Security. In particular, the 2nd sentence: "The rod then instantly transports you and up to 199 other willing creatures you can see to a paradise that exists in an extraplanar space." That's up to 200 creatures, of any size, in 1 space.
That bit about mums and dads reminded me too much of mounted combat… lol
The feat says nothing about 5 ft up. It just says "you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". You can't control a space 5 ft up if you can't fly.
If, on the other hand, you and your opponent were flying (say, for instance, you were fighting a pegasus) I'd also allow you to knock such an opponent either 5 ft up or 5 ft down but that would just be a personal view and this only on the interpretation that they were carrying their own weight.
Charger
Shield Master
All Crusher says that it allows you to do is that:
If you want to try to convince your DM that this allows you to knock an opponent potentially one size larger than you to a height of 5 ft, go ahead. I just think that the idea would be ridiculous in any scenario that made attempts at physical realism. If you're working towards a cartoon or video game type scenario, perhaps anything goes.
And there's the problem. No where in the rules does it state 5E makes any attempt at physical realism. The designers are tabletop geeks, not rocket scientists. Each character moves rapidly during its turn, but then stands there while the other characters do thier thing (except possibly taking 1 reaction). By the rules on falling stated here, many sports are impossible since the ball would immediately & instantly fall to the ground. Forget home runs, you'll never get the baseball past the pitcher! There are so many 5E rules that make no sense in the real world, because the designers designed the game for fun, not for realism. So if you're looking for a high level of realism, I humbly suggest that D&D is not the game for you. It is not designed to scratch that itch.
Nowhere in the rules does it state that 5e hasn't made attempts at physical realism. Not that I use them, but the game even contains optional rules for making realism gritty.
People are free to choose their own style, view and even idea of gaming.
Tabletop geeks are the best people to design tabletop games.
RAW based 5e satisfies my itch very well.
If someone pushes a ruling on what RAW is saying that I think is wrong or exploitative, I'll argue against it.
If someone says that I've said something that's objectively untrue, if that's not the case then I'll set them straight.
If I make a mistake, as with the gnomes mentioned a couple of posts ago, I'll admit it.
There's no problem.
You might have skipped the part where I stated "By the rules on falling stated here". No where did I say those rules were actually RAW. Per this thread, falling happens not just instantly, but the fall itself happens instantly. The instant the Crusher effect ends, the target instantly falls to the ground, no time for a Action or Bonus Action. So the instant the Swing Bat action ends, the baseball immediately plummets to the earth, per the rules as stated in this thread, no time to move under the ball or perform a Catch action. Except, as you noted, that's not how physics actually works. Inertia / momentum is a thing. Players in the outfield clearly have plenty of time to run across the field and casually catch the ball. The batter runs all the way to first base, if he's lucky. Which, by the way, is 90' away from home. Apparently every MLB player is a Monk?
Jumping is wierd because you can have a jump distance greater than your remaining movement. RAW, what happens when a character with 5' of movement remaining uses a jump of 10'? Do they jump 5' & then hang in midair until thier next turn? Do they go the whole 10' & land (maybe losing 5' of movement from thier next turn)? Jump 5' & land (but why, I can jump 10')?
Also, track the time in a MLB game from when the bat hits the ball to when a home run (or even almost home run) is caught or hits the ground. That's considerably longer than 1 second. Might even be longer than 6 seconds under the best conditions, but I couldn't find any info on the net to confirm that.