Tumbling around Corners

[Baron Von StarBlade]

We had a situation occur during out last session where the resident rules lawyer ( me ) and the DM didn't agree on a specific situation involving tumble and corners. Here is the layout of the room.

* 1 2 *
* 3 4 *
* 5 * *
* 6 *
* 7 *

The thief was standing in Square 1 (Bolded) and the villian was in Square 3 (Red). The thief wanted to tumble to square 4 (italicied) and then square 5 (italicied). The DM ruled that the thief would be tumbling through the villians occupied square since there was a corner between square 4 and 5.
This is one of the flaws when using a square grid but I thought I would get the opinion of the boards.

 

[AuraSeer]

The DM is always right. We'll just pretend otherwise for now.

IMC that tumble would be not be counted as moving through an occupied square. However, I might apply a circumstance penalty to the Tumble check, for intentionally cutting so close. The DM is always free to modify the DC or the skill check, based on what he sees as extenuating circumstances.

 

[Christian]

IMO, this is the same question as, "Could a character move from square 4 to square 5 without tumbling?" This is also under-determined by the movement rules; my answer would be, "No." So I concur with your DM.

It would probably be best if he/she had a general rule to state up front, of course. Mine is that when moving on a diagonal, the figure must move through one or both of the diagonal squares, even when the movement only counts as 5'. This lets you use the popular 5'/10' rule without getting weird situations with reach weapons, corners, and diagonal battle lines ...

 

[jontherev]

First of all, a ruleslawyer should know that rogue is not spelled t-h-i-e-f.

Second, unless you are incorporeal, you WILL be forced to go through the enemy's square. I am assuming that corner took up the entire 5' square. I think the DM made a good call.

 

[Will]

Well, toss my vote in for 'yes, he can'.

You can't walk through an occupied square. You can walk past it. There are no differences listed for moving diagonally around someone or along rows and columns. All these movements are, unless there is errata I'm not aware of, treated identically.

If I can walk diagonally along an orc, without having to push him or anything, I don't see why tumbling would need to be under his legs.

 

[Christian]

Pardon me for continuing (I know I'm not going to change anybody's mind but I can't help myself):

Will, would you say the same thing if the square labelled '3' were instead an * (5' square of solid rock)? If so, what's the justification for saying that someone can squeeze through the non-existent gap? That the rules let figures move on the diagonals?

Sure, if the corner * is empty instead, someone can just walk past (provoking an AoO). But what if it's another enemy instead? Can someone just step between them, because, again, the rules let figures move on the diagonals? If so, how close do the enemies have to be to close their ranks and prevent non-tumblers from moving through?

The solution in my previous post is simple, easy to enforce, and doesn't have constant goofiness. Of course the walker can move past the orc on the diagonal-he has to move through only one of the spaces, not both, when making that 5' move. But when *both* of the opposing diagonals are occupied (by figures, obstacles, or a combination thereof), he needs to have a legal way to move through one of the obstacles.

The rules state the diagonal moves are allowed. They do not state that such a move is *always* allowed when both squares are unoccupied. It's a 'hole' in the rules, requiring the DM to use his best judgment. (This may be intentional-there's no general rule, including mine, that catches every possible configuration of figures on the grid.) Given that, I'd say that the DM's judgment call was a good one.

 

[Astlin]

"Will, would you say the same thing if the square labelled '3' were instead an * (5' square of solid rock)? If so, what's the justification for saying that someone can squeeze through the non-existent gap? That the rules let figures move on the diagonals?"

0XX0
00X0
0X0
0X0
0X0

It looks to me like it is a valid path.

Yes, the rules do let you move on the diagonals. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/RoleModels.pdf

The following character (X) can move into any of the spaces adjacent to him (*).

***
*X*
***

If you want to block the path, then you are going to have to be right up in neck of the passage.

Like so:
*12*
*34*
*X*
*6*
*7*

<edit>
Reread your post. Sory, it is one of the limitations with using a grid.

If you want a 'tight formation' you are going to have to line up on the grid, get more bodies or stand in a better spot.

0XX0
0YX0
0XY0
0X0
0X0

The Y's are not blocking the way.


0XX0
0YY0
0XX0
0X0
0X0

Now they are.

My sugestion for the DM would be to have the mob stand in the hall if he wanted to block the way.

Astlin

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

Christian brings up a valid point, which I didn't consider, that if Square 3 in the original diagram was a wall, then you couldn't move through that diagonal, unless there was a specific opening there.

That being said, I do agree with Astlin, that if the baddie wanted to plug the gap then he should have moved back to Square 5 and you can move diagonal just like normal movement.

However I do believe AuraSeer has the best remedy with increasing the DC of the tumble check since you don't have alot of room to navigate (DC20. . ie in the middle of DC15 and DC25 for the two seperate instances). I will most likely bring that up to the DM and see if he goes for it.

BTW Jontherev, the rogue actually had just stolen something which triggered the attack, so that would make him a thief . But I understand where you were coming from though( I guess it is still one my old 1E habits).

 

[Will]

I maintain that unless you are using a terrain board and marking things off with rulers and twine, a diagonal is considered 'adjacent'. Whether the square contains an enemy, a wall, or burning acid, the grid 'model' is that there is easy access between the two squares.

I view it more as an octagonal tesselation, like:
http://www.missiontilewest.com/styles/nantucket/n32.jpg

That is, you only control what's really in your square. If you think of reach as a circle that just fills a square, then really formations become a 'stacking' issue.

I maintain that D20, as it's written, establishes diagonals as completely free and unblockable. But, of course, it's the DM's game.

-=Will

 

[Will]

I maintain that unless you are using a terrain board and marking things off with rulers and twine, a diagonal is considered 'adjacent'. Whether the square contains an enemy, a wall, or burning acid, the grid 'model' is that there is easy access between the two squares.

I view it more as an octagonal tesselation, like:
http://www.missiontilewest.com/styles/nantucket/n32.jpg

That is, you only control what's really in your square. If you think of reach as a circle that just fills a square, then really formations become a 'stacking' issue.

I maintain that D20, as it's written, establishes diagonals as completely free and unblockable. But, of course, it's the DM's game.

-=Will