D&D 5E Moving diagonally between enemies on a grid

[nightwind1]

I use grids less and less and tend to throw down gridless terrain mats, tiles, and clothes.

Are you playing Strip D & D?

 

[Cyrinishad]

Hex grids just look so hideous if you are in a square room. all those 1/2 hex just magically unusable.

Meh... I haven't had issues with 1/2 hexes impeding anything beyond aesthetics. Not a big deal, but I suppose you have to pick your poison if you're going to use a tactical map.

Although, I'll also throw a +1 at the folks that use the gridless 1-inch scale option... Been tried and true for Tabletop Wargamers for generations.

 

[MNblockhead]

Are you playing Strip D & D?

Ha! No, just posted too late. CLOTH. Felt actually, by Ceri design: http://www.ceridesign.com/

 

[Arial Black]

The rules answer is that although a creature might require a 5 foot space in which to fight, the creature does not fill the entire volume of that space! (unless they do, like a gelatinous cube) The creature moves around in its space.

We may say that the average place within the square that the creature actually is will probably be the centre of that square, but conceptually moving about within it. The centers of two diagonal squares are nearly seven and a half feet apart. That's a big enough space for a medium creature to get through.

Don't forget that opportunity attacks may be provoked, and if the guards exist to prevent creatures moving through them then they should have readied actions that trigger when a hostile creature tries to move past them.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't see how this would solve the problem with lateral movement. It'll still be offset. I haven't actually used offset squares, but it seems like they might actually bring more of the cons for each option than the pros. You don't even get the 2/3:1/3 hex option for square lines, so you must use half spaces.

Yes, you use two half squares. At any point in time, a player (or the DM) could use two half squares to move in any direction as if it were an actual square (unless a PC or foe is already taking up one of the half squares for a full square). This same thing can be done with hexes, but it is more intuitively obvious with squares.

So if a player wants his PC to move 90 degrees, he just moves from his original square to two half squares to another square to two half squares, etc. Half squares are sometimes also important for edges of a rectangular shaped room. But when it comes to 90 degrees in hexes or offset squares, one doesn't even need to use half-squares (or half-hexes). That serpentine 60 degrees to the right, 60 degrees to the left still gets a miniature to the same destination square/hex with the same amount of movement as 90 degree move. It just might provoke in some cases, hence, the use of half-squares and rules for those (like when do they provoke if the PC is not in a full square).


But if one thinks about it, it is just standard operating procedure in D&D to often have rectangular rooms whose dimensions are divisible by 5 feet, or corridors that go NS or EW instead of some weird diagonal. This is why other "share grid" type of rules are desirable (like combining two half hexes or two half squares, or how much of a hex/square must be viewable in order for it to be a full square instead of a squeezed square, etc.). The DM can draw any shape, any size that he wants and the wonky edges are controlled by other rules.

 

[Shiroiken]

I assume you mean draw from the center of one edge of the square, not the center of the square, itself, leaving 3/4 and 1/4 squares.

Correct, it's the center of a side. Otherwise it would come out of the corner anyway.

If so, I really like your idea and can't believe I've never run across it before. Probably the only concern with it is that most maps are mostly square to the world, with an occasional diagonal and the shift occurs at an even square interval. That's easy enough to adjust, it just takes some thought.

Yea, I learned old school. The "grid" was the map the DM drew and described to the players, who hoped they drew it correctly. Diagonals back then were much more common, since dungeons needed tricks to throw off the mapmaking player (one-way doors, teleportation gates, gentle slopes that would move you between levels unless you had a dwarf that could notice them, etc.). If minis were used, which was seldom in my circles, you used a ruler for movement. The notion of using preset grids didn't appear until later, since D&D was still rooted in its wargaming past.

 

[Shiroiken]

Yes, you use two half squares. At any point in time, a player (or the DM) could use two half squares to move in any direction as if it were an actual square (unless a PC or foe is already taking up one of the half squares for a full square). This same thing can be done with hexes, but it is more intuitively obvious with squares.

So if a player wants his PC to move 90 degrees, he just moves from his original square to two half squares to another square to two half squares, etc. Half squares are sometimes also important for edges of a rectangular shaped room. But when it comes to 90 degrees in hexes or offset squares, one doesn't even need to use half-squares (or half-hexes). That serpentine 60 degrees to the right, 60 degrees to the left still gets a miniature to the same destination square/hex with the same amount of movement as 90 degree move. It just might provoke in some cases, hence, the use of half-squares and rules for those (like when do they provoke if the PC is not in a full square).


But if one thinks about it, it is just standard operating procedure in D&D to often have rectangular rooms whose dimensions are divisible by 5 feet, or corridors that go NS or EW instead of some weird diagonal. This is why other "share grid" type of rules are desirable (like combining two half hexes or two half squares, or how much of a hex/square must be viewable in order for it to be a full square instead of a squeezed square, etc.). The DM can draw any shape, any size that he wants and the wonky edges are controlled by other rules.

Wouldn't it be easier to use half sized squares (1 square = 1/2")? That way the minis would fit over four squares (for a medium creature) and they could adjust by 2.5' any time they needed?

 

[KarinsDad]

Wouldn't it be easier to use half sized squares (1 square = 1/2")? That way the minis would fit over four squares (for a medium creature) and they could adjust by 2.5' any time they needed?

It might be for many players, but I have at least one player who tries to "count out" every single distance (for both PC movement and for spell range) all of the time. It's so annoying. Just move the miniature close enough so that your 60' range spell is about 50' or 55' away. But, this player (playing a wizard) wants to make sure that he is exactly as far away as possible so that after he casts his spell, he can move away as far as possible.

Could you imagine if he had to count out twice as many 1/4th sized squares???

We'd be at the table all night for a single encounter.


I have tried to not use grids, but the entire "is the PC adjacent?", "does the PC provoke?", and "how exactly is the medium sized monster in the corner being melee-ed by 2 PCs and 2 large conjured animals? (because the miniatures might be able to fit that close together)" stuff seemed to slow down the game a lot as well. Without the grids there to put boundaries in people's minds, movement adjudications and disagreements just seem to pop up in the game.

 

[Arial Black]

I've been playing since AD&D 1E, and didn't use the square grid until 3E.

A few questions may arise due to the approximation that is the grid, but believe me when I tell you that such minor problem pale into insignificance compared to the major blow-ups, arguments, character deaths, lost players and DMs, and all sorts of other badness that arose out of each player/DM having a different picture in their heads about precisely where all the combatants were!

Young people today don't know they're born!

 

[DemonSlayer]

On the battle map, two diagonally adjacent creatures are further apart than two creatures in adjacent squares by a distance of .414 of a square (2.07'), assuming they are exactly in their squares (I don't make figures conform to the squares in my game BTW).

As DM, I'd allow a creature to squeeze between the two diagonal creatures if they are the appropriate size, and take the penalty for squeezing. It's close enough to 2.5 feet, and they don't occupy the whole space.

Just curious, but if you don't use a grid, and they were .414 of an inch apart, how would you rule?