5 foot step between attackers

[dcollins]

Here's a WOTC "Rules of the Game" article which asserts that you cannot move diagonally across wall corners, but (unfortunately, imo) you can move diagonally past enemies: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040713a

Corners: Corners, such as where two walls meet at a right angle, block movement. You cannot move diagonally past them, though you can trace line of effects for attacks past them. When you attack past a corner, you foe has cover. Most squares that contain foes are impassible to you, but you can move diagonally past them and your target doesn't get cover if you attack along that diagonal. This is because creatures don't completely fill all the space they occupy on the battlefield.

 

[Christian]

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.

No, it isn't, no matter what you do on a square grid. A 35' wide corridor can be blocked by seven medium figures when parallel to the gridlines. If it's diagonal, it requires either ten (by the RAW, using a 'step' configuration) or five (if you don't allow moves between diagonally placed opponents). And this is one of the few problems with square grids that isn't entirely fixed with a hex grid, although it's a bit better proportionally ...

 

[Coredump]

Hi all,
Was I incorrect in the spirit of RAW, or does this seem like a fair ruling on my part.

I think this is one of those "thank goodness we use a DM" kind of moments. (see sig) I think your ruling was a fine one. Is it exactly covered in RAW? No, but RAW is not supposed to be all-encompassing. I could easily see two goblins side by side (even diagonally) counting at 'difficult terrain'. So I think your ruling was fair.

Now, if there were other party members at positions 7 and 3, I might of let it be a 5' step, since the goblins would have been more, um... distracted. And the terrian would not have been as 'difficult'.

OTOH, if he was willing to use a move action, I probably would have ignored the AoO, or given him a defense bonus.... YMMV.

 

[Infiniti2000]

OTOH, if he was willing to use a move action, I probably would have ignored the AoO, or given him a defense bonus.... YMMV.

That funny because if it was a move action, that would have provoked an AoO. So, you're houseruling the exact opposite of the RAW.

If you don't allow a 5ft-step in such a case, you are really emphasizing the gridded combat system, making it more "chess-like". IMO, it's not a good houserule at all. Most people prefer to try to downplay the effects of gridded combat.

As for actual movement, it bears some discussion. What I call the "Red Rover Scenario" does have its shortcomings, but IME it has never come up, so I haven't spent any time trying to houserule it. What I have had more difficulty with is Tumble (and so I have some houserules to deal with that).

 

[Coredump]

That funny because if it was a move action, that would have provoked an AoO. So, you're houseruling the exact opposite of the RAW.

No. Since it is not covered exactly, I can't rule exactly opposite. I am making a spot decision based on the actual, exact, situation at hand. I would allow, in this situation, someone to use a move action to move 5' without provoking an AoO. That is why I play DnD, and not a computer game.

If you don't allow a 5ft-step in such a case, you are really emphasizing the gridded combat system, making it more "chess-like". IMO, it's not a good houserule at all. Most people prefer to try to downplay the effects of gridded combat.

And I see the reasoning as exactly the opposite. I totally ignored the 'gridded combat system' and looked at two goblins standing next to each other fighting the same person, that person wants to casually step between them and still get a full attack. Now, the 'gridded combat system' says "Hey, the corner of your square is touching the corner of the opposite square, so go ahead." I am ignoring the squares, and saying that it will be difficult to squeeze between them. This is also why I *would* allow it if there were other fighters there for the goblins to concentrate on. Because then, with or without the grid, it would be easier to slip between them. My ruling makes more sense if you don't draw the grid, allowing it without a problem makes more sense if you can see the grid.