5 foot step between attackers

[dren]

Hi all,

Hope some of you can help me determine if I made an error in my ruling. A player (position P) was caught in a right angle between two enemies (Position X). He tried to use his five foot step to move between the two enemies (position 1). As the DM i ruled that because he attempted to move between two enemy combatants, it was a hampered area and thus he could not. I did allow him to move to position 7 on the grid. Was I incorrect in the spirit of RAW, or does this seem like a fair ruling on my part.

1X3
XE6
789

Thanks for any assistance the wise folks here at ENWorld can offer on this.

dren

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Hi all,

Hope some of you can help me determine if I made an error in my ruling. A player (position P) was caught in a right angle between two enemies (Position X). He tried to use his five foot step to move between the two enemies (position 1). As the DM i ruled that because he attempted to move between two enemy combatants, it was a hampered area and thus he could not. I did allow him to move to position 7 on the grid. Was I incorrect in the spirit of RAW, or does this seem like a fair ruling on my part.

1X3
XE6
789

Thanks for any assistance the wise folks here at ENWorld can offer on this.

dren

Check out your PHB, p. 144 (3.5, anyway).

"Hampered" does not mean moving between two enemies. If there was difficult terrain there, or darkness, or the PC didn't have enough movement to move 5' without taking a move action, then, no, he couldn't've moved there.

But, assuming none of the above applied, he could've moved into position 1 without provoking any attacks of opportunity. Why he would've wanted to, though, is a good question; either of the enemies could've easily flanked him with their own 5' move as a result!

Brad

 

[Hypersmurf]

either of the enemies could've easily flanked him with their own 5' move as a result!

Not if position 1 is in a corner!

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

There is a school of thought that with any diagonal move, you need to be able to (hypothetically) move through one or the other of the adjacent spaces for it to be allowed. I don't think that's in the core rules. I can't remember if that ever appeared in out-of-rule designer comments. If not, I think it's a very reasonable House Rule.

 

[moritheil]

I think it's a very reasonable House Rule.

I don't know about that. After all, people do not actually take up 5'x5' - their position just varies within that 5'x5' square, and we say that they can be found within.

 

[dren]

Check out your PHB, p. 144 (3.5, anyway).

"Hampered" does not mean moving between two enemies. If there was difficult terrain there, or darkness, or the PC didn't have enough movement to move 5' without taking a move action, then, no, he couldn't've moved there.

But, assuming none of the above applied, he could've moved into position 1 without provoking any attacks of opportunity. Why he would've wanted to, though, is a good question; either of the enemies could've easily flanked him with their own 5' move as a result!

Brad

The player was making a smart move as he was moving out of the way in order to allow his comrades to move forward as he was essentially in a bottleneck. I didn't think under the circumstance that a five foot step should be allowed as he was being covered by the two goblins; and even when I reread the paragraphs I still think that he was hampered...but per the RAW I made a bad decision.

 

[Christian]

I don't know about that. After all, people do not actually take up 5'x5' - their position just varies within that 5'x5' square, and we say that they can be found within.

The general reasoning for the ruling is that it's otherwise impossible for a line of foes to block movement (by non-tumblers) other than along the directon of the gridlines. The squares are supposed to be an abstraction, not part of the game reality, but just an aid to adjudication. However, under the RAW, one can effectively block a path with a single line of bodies that runs exactly north-south or east-west, but not in any other direction ...

 

[CronoDekar]

The general reasoning for the ruling is that it's otherwise impossible for a line of foes to block movement (by non-tumblers) other than along the directon of the gridlines. The squares are supposed to be an abstraction, not part of the game reality, but just an aid to adjudication. However, under the RAW, one can effectively block a path with a single line of bodies that runs exactly north-south or east-west, but not in any other direction ...

I hadn't thought of it that way before, and it makes sense. One thing I was wondering though -- suppose the player really wanted to get through to space 1 and was willing to Bull Rush or Overrun. Which one would he do the action on?

 

[Legildur]

The general reasoning for the ruling is that it's otherwise impossible for a line of foes to block movement (by non-tumblers) other than along the directon of the gridlines. The squares are supposed to be an abstraction, not part of the game reality, but just an aid to adjudication. However, under the RAW, one can effectively block a path with a single line of bodies that runs exactly north-south or east-west, but not in any other direction ...

I see where you are coming from, but it is the orientation of the grid that is causing you the problems.

You see, with the north-south or east-west orientation the opponents blocking the line are only 5 feet apart from centre to centre.

Whilst on the angles they are 7.5 (approx) feet apart and to block a path would really be represented in an abstract fashion by occupying a series of L shapes.

It isn't perfect.

 

[dcollins]

I hadn't thought of it that way before, and it makes sense. One thing I was wondering though -- suppose the player really wanted to get through to space 1 and was willing to Bull Rush or Overrun. Which one would he do the action on?

Whichever one he wanted.