How many people fit into a 10 foot by 10 foot space [duplicate]

D&D rules proclaim ONE (1) medium creature uses 5’x5′ – in combat. Thus a 20’x20′ room holds 16 people, max. There are some interesting combat rules for ‘squeezing’ for ONE exceptional creature.

Please note, in reality 16 living people also fit into a small car. In fact, according to these rules, only 2000 people could fit into an 80 000 person football stadium. It would be good, valuable & reasonable to know how medium sized creatures fit when squeezed, out of combat or otherwise.


1. Are there ANY 5e D&D rules, offical tweets, UA suggestions &/or other stuff, optional or otherwise, for how many people fit, tightly-squeezed / maximum, into a given space?

SHOULD THE ABOVE FAIL:

2. Does ANY OTHER rule system have any suggestions on humanoid / spacing / out-of-combat?

SHOULD BOTH OF THE ABOVE FAIL:

3 Anyone with grasp of ‘physics’ &/or ‘how people fit together’… or ANY OTHER SOURCE… have ANY suggestions for how many people can typically pile into a space?


Reason for asking: Many creatures do not respect social space. Example: zombies – how many could pile into a 10×10 foot room just by walking in? ‘Obviously more than four’ is obviously correct but still not a useful answer.

Does Evards Black Tentacles affect the 5 foot cubes above its area?

So I’m playing in a tomb of annihilation game and there were some succubi that we were fighting. We had information ahead of time that a lot of them were grouped up together talking to someone and so I decided it would be a good time to whip out my new spell Evard’s Black Tentacles. Now the problem is that the Dm said that the creatures are flying creatures and are unaffected.

My problem is this, when the spell designates that the 20 foot square area is the area of the spell, does that actually mean hostile enemies have to be physically touching the ground or does the spell reasonably affect the 5 foot cubes that the 20 foot square has above them.

Can you target someone with a “that you can see” spell if you can only see a hand or a foot?

If you just get a glimpse of someone turning a corner, maybe just a foot, can you cast a spell that says "that you can see"? A situation that came up for me was as follows.

Command:

You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn. The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn’t understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it.

A gnome is on my back and I want to cast command to get it to leave. I can only see a hand, but he can hear me. Can I cast command on him? What about skeletons just cresting a sand dune? And can I do a melee attack?

What I’m trying to get at is what it takes to see someone. Do you have to see center mass, a whole body, do they have 3/4 cover if you can only see a hand, even though it is not covered, just behind me?

In combat, how many creatures can be in a 5 foot square at the end of a turn? [closed]

In D&D 5e, basically all PCs fit in on a 5 foot square. I want to figure out how much that 5 foot square can hold at end of turn by rules as written.

My first estimation is 3 people. Using the rule that allows creatures to use other creatures that are a size category bigger then them as a mount, allows for the situation: A centaur barbarian counts as large for carrying and pushing so with some plate armored fighter on top, duel wielding lances, a half-ling sits on the fighters shoulders, gets us to three.

That is 3, but can we get more?

Why is targeting an adjacent attacker with a 5 foot cube area attack considered a ranged attack?

An opponent has moved adjacent up into a character’s face and swung at them. On their turn, in retaliation, the character would like to attack back with their favoured cube area attack, made at the size of a 5 foot sized cube to be ergonomic. Oddly the rules as written (see below) seems to qualify this attack as a ranged attack even though the target is adjacent and every other area attack also containing the attacker would not. Is this an oversight, an intentional design decision, or is there anything I’m overlooking that makes this ruling invalid?

The rules leading me to this conclusion appears here:

Ranged Attacks in Melee

Any time you make a ranged attack and there is an enemy within melee reach of you, you have disadvantage 1 on your attack roll. Area attacks are considered ranged attacks if the area does not include at least one space adjacent to the attacker.

The 5 foot cube placed on the attacker’s square does not include at least one space adjacent to the attacker but it does include attacker’s square itself which intuitively feels like it shouldn’t be a ranged attack as well as other area attacks. RAW however, this means it’s a ranged attack and imposes disadvantage 1. To me a more intuitive ruling and writing of it would be:

Ranged Attacks in Melee

Any time you make a ranged attack and there is an enemy within melee reach of you, you have disadvantage 1 on your attack roll. Area attacks are considered ranged attacks if the area does not include the attacker or at least one space adjacent to the attacker. (changes italicized)

Are there existing rules or other evidence the designer’s intention was for this scenario to be a ranged attack? If so, why only 5 foot cubes and not every other area effect (they have to include a square adjacent to the opponent as well)? Is there perhaps another mechanical reason I can’t find that this attack should be considered ranged? Is the attack simply supposed to impose disadvantage 1 and being considered ranged is simply a byproduct?

In the case that it shouldn’t be considered ranged (or only considered ranged for the purpose of disadvantage 1), I would like to revise this confusing wording. I have found the Open Legends repository and my intention is to submit a pull request if I understand the rules correctly and this ruling is against the RAI. However, I’m asking my question here first to gain assurance, as I know that I am very new to the system and may be overlooking something.

When did 5 foot squares become standard in D&D?

Perhaps showing my age here, but in “The Good Old Days”, 10-foot squares were a standard map size. Each square on the map was 10 feet, and a 10-foot wide corridor was normal.

Now, having started gaming again, it seems 5-foot squares are standard.

So my question is: when did this change happen? Was it 3rd edition?

And if I’m trying to convert one of my old D&D modules to 5e, should I just make all the passages 2 x 5-foot wide instead of 1 x 10-foot wide?

Uac interaction for people with physical disabilities (no keyboard, mouse or foot pedals)

Is there any way for a user to interact with a uac prompt for admin privileges despite not being not able to use a physical keyboard, mouse or foot pedal? I use both voice and eyetracker software, Dragon naturally speaking and Optikey,but neither can interact with uac, AFAIK. One workaround, that I use is using something like Teamviewer to interact with the uac prompt. This is not ideal, as it requires a second accessible computer. Is there another approach that obviously doesn’t need to disable uac either? Perhaps something like a physical key (e.g. Usb)?