A gelatinous Cube and a 10-feet corridor ...

77IM · Nov 13, 2018

I'd let the fighter move back 10 feet -- first he moves back 5 feet, but that square is occupied by the wizard, so the fighter gets shunted to the nearest unoccupied space. The nearest unoccupied space is right behind the wizard, so now the fighter is 10 feet from the cube. And shielded by the wizard, who is probably whining about it, that wimp.

Demetrios1453 · Nov 13, 2018

What happens if the group in question is in a dead-end corridor - that there's actually a wall behind the wizard and rogue? (Presumably the gelatinous cube snuck up behind them as they went down the corridor.) If the fighter gets shunted to the nearest unoccupied space - well, that's on the other side of the cube!

Shiroiken · Nov 13, 2018

Quickleaf said:
The fighter shares the wizard's space – adapting the rules for squeezing.

This is how I've ruled similar things.

I find the "can't willingly end your move" to be somewhat problematic. By RAW, you can't stand on top of a fallen ally or enemy, because you would be ending your turn in their space. Arguably you could once they fail all the death saves, since they're no longer creatures, but it shows how strict adherence to wording can quickly become silly.

77IM · Nov 13, 2018

Demetrios1453 said:
What happens if the group in question is in a dead-end corridor - that there's actually a wall behind the wizard and rogue? (Presumably the gelatinous cube snuck up behind them as they went down the corridor.) If the fighter gets shunted to the nearest unoccupied space - well, that's on the other side of the cube!

Well, that would still be 10 feet of movement, and it's somewhat analogous to stepping to the side. Plus, then he's cut off from his soon-to-be-cube-food party, which I think is awesome!

Actually, in order to reach that space he would need to move through another 5 feet of cube, so I'd probably have him make the save again to see if he can dodge that 5-foot section also. (This effectively gives him disadvantage on the save, which seems fair under the circumstances.)

CrimsonCarcharodon · Nov 13, 2018

practicalm said:
I would rule that there is no problem for the wizard and fighter to share the space for the time until one of them has a new turn.
They are sharing a space at the end of someone else's turn which is fine.

ad_hoc said:
Give the Wizard the opportunity to use their reaction to step back to allow the Fighter room.

That's what reactions are for.

Honestly, either one of these would be the direction I went. If you want a penalty for being in the same space, disadvantage on attacks until one of the two moves, and whichever one of them goes first must move or otherwise be out of that space by the end of their turn.

Ganymede81 · Nov 13, 2018

I'd let the fighter share the same square as the wizard, but also be prone. If he wants to stand up, he has to crawl to a free square first.

ccs · Nov 13, 2018

Rules aside: Remember, you're arguing about occupying a 5ft cube of space. people, even with gear, don't take up that much space (generally anyways). You might not be able to fight effectively within that shred space, but you can fit.
what would happen at our table would be that the fighter is pushed into the wizards square & both make a dex save or end up prone.
the next to act would then have to move to an unoccupied space or neither could attack/cast spells etc. or if they could it'd be at disadvantage & only on of them could act.

And if anyone INSISTED on RAW? Then that player would get a lot of crap for being a crappy friend/teammate & not letting the fighter step back.

& no, this would not set any kind of precedent so no one would be running up into an enemies square to hinder attacks.

Dessert Nomad · Nov 13, 2018

RAW and how I'd rule is that the party is crowding each other's lines of escape, and that since the fighter has no valid 5' move he's engulfed. I'd warn the players that's a risk of packing themselves too tightly before the cube got to them so that they weren't surprised, but part of dealing with the situation is leaving enough room for characters to maneuver so they don't get special chances to escape. I wouldn't be bothered if a DM houseruled it so that the fighter can stand in someone else's space.

Eltab said:
(If the Wizard goes first, this is what Expeditious Retreat is for. If it's the Fighter, Shovel a piece out of the Cube and step back three squares.)

What good does Expeditious Retreat do the Wizard here? Without it, the Wizard can either use disengage to avoid an AOO, then move or move risking an AOO, then do a regular action. Expeditious retreat lets him burn his bonus action to get extra movement, but that doesn't help with anything in the example. Unless you mean the wizard is just bugging out and abandoning the rest of the party, of course.

S'mon · Nov 13, 2018

As others have said, the rule is you can't end YOUR turn in another's space. This seems to be a legacy of 3e/4e square-centric combat.

I'd rule it (in fact I did rule it recently) that all the PCs who get pushed back get pushed back together in a jumbled heap. If there is no way back because of eg dead end corridor then I would make the engulf automatic.

S'mon · Nov 13, 2018

Shiroiken said:
This is how I've ruled similar things.

I find the "can't willingly end your move" to be somewhat problematic. By RAW, you can't stand on top of a fallen ally or enemy, because you would be ending your turn in their space. Arguably you could once they fail all the death saves, since they're no longer creatures, but it shows how strict adherence to wording can quickly become silly.

Yeah, I don't apply the rule to prone, unconscious creatures. You are free to stand on top of them.

A gelatinous Cube and a 10-feet corridor ...

77IM

Explorer!!!

Demetrios1453

Hero

Shiroiken

Legend

77IM

Explorer!!!

CrimsonCarcharodon

Explorer

Ganymede81

First Post

ccs

41st lv DM

Dessert Nomad

Adventurer

S'mon

Legend

S'mon

Legend

Similar Threads