D&D 5E Attacking on an ally's space

[Caliban]

The question of what "ending movement" means exactly is I think ambiguous in the rules. It could be:

1. You stop moving when you do anything other than move (ie, you attack, cast a spell, use an object, etc). But that misses the fact that you can move and do something at the same time.

2. You stop moving at the end of your turn. But that is weird because turns are an abstraction, really if you are running for a minute you don't stop every 6 seconds.

3. You stop moving when you say your character isn't moving any more. But that kind of breaks a few game things; occupying an ally's space is one, the fighter's evasive footwork maneuver is another).

I don't know if there is a good general solution.

By the rules, you are either moving or attacking - not both at the same time. The narrative may be that you attack as you move by, but the game mechanics handle it by you moving, stopping to swing your weapon several times, and then moving again.

The combat rules are simplified and abstract in order to handle multiple creatures (by having them to act in sequence instead of simultaneously) without being super complicated, they are not an attempt at a true simulation of combat. It's always been that way.

If you want to more realistically model multiple creatures acting simultaneously (or even just one creature doing multiple things at the same time, like moving and attacking) you can, but it leads to a much more complicated set of rules (and much slower combats).

It's one of the perks of being the DM that you can decide to allow things that make narrative sense, but aren't modeled by the rules, when you deem it appropriate.

 

[jaelis]

By the rules, you are either moving or attacking - not both at the same time.

I don't think the rules actually say that anywhere, though. There are things you can read that way, but I think most of the rules text can equally well be read to say that you can attack etc without interrupting your move.

 

[LordEntrails]

I think the ruling I would make would be that both allies are squeezing until the start of their next turn. Yes this penalizes the fighter or stationary PC as well, but I would say that s/he has to be doing something to allow the rogue enough space in the square to allow for the attack.

 

[Caliban]

I don't think the rules actually say that anywhere, though. There are things you can read that way, but I think most of the rules text can equally well be read to say that you can attack etc without interrupting your move.

Sure they do. The very first bit of rules text I quoted says it clearly. I'll quote it again:

Breaking Up Your Move

You can break up your Movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.

This was also confirmed by the tweet from Jeremy Crawford that I linked. It's not really up for debate.

 

[jaelis]

I'm happy that it seems clear to you, and that is how I play it too. But it's still the case that neither the rule you mentioned nor JC's quote actually says (or even strongly implies) that you stop moving when you take your action.

 

[jgsugden]

Quotes from the rules would be helpful here - but I think the problem is that the rules do not do a great job of addressing this specific concern explicitly. However, it is in there.

The first section under Breaking Up Your Move on page 190 indicates that you can "... move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again." It references each period of movement as a separate 'move'.

Then, on the next page, we get the language saying: "...you can't willingly end your move in (a creature's) space."

As such, you can't end a move to initiate an attack from an occupied space.

However, there is a trick that, technically, under the RAW works. Find a way to reduce the rogue's movement to 0 (or knock it prone with insufficient move to crawl away) while it is in the space of the fighter. Then it can attack. Most DMs would not allow it, but under RAW it is allowed.

 

[Satyrn]

Imagine you're playing on a grid. The party is holding a door against a group of orcs. The fighter in the front rank is within 5' of the orcs and can attack, but the rogue is in the second rank and cannot reach. In order to attack, the rogue wants to move onto the fighter's square, attack an orc, then move back to his original position.

Is this within the rules?

I would ask your players if they really want that to work. The fighter especially. Because if the rogue can do it, the orcs ought to, too - and that means the fighter's gonna be taking a giant beating.

I just don't see that being the desirable result.

 

[Caliban]

I'm happy that it seems clear to you, and that is how I play it too.

So you are trying to pick a fight even though you don't agree with your own position. Whatever.

I'm not really interested in debating a member of the Flat Earth society.

 

[jasper]

I keep forgetting moving thru occupied space is difficult terrain.

 

[Prakriti]

I'm happy that it seems clear to you, and that is how I play it too. But it's still the case that neither the rule you mentioned nor JC's quote actually says (or even strongly implies) that you stop moving when you take your action.

I agree that the RAW is ambiguous, but Crawford returned to the same question in 2016, clearing up any ambiguity:

Can a character move into a space occupied by their ally, make an attack from that space, and then move away?
— Bobby the Barbarian

You can't willingly stop moving in another creature's space. #DnD
— Jeremy Crawford

Is it 'can't stop moving' or 'can't end your turn in a square'?
— Mavalanche

Move, not turn. See the Player's Handbook, p. 191.
— Jeremy Crawford
​

Source: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/30...their-ally-make-an-attack-and-then-move-away/

So by RAI, you cannot attack while occupying an ally's space, because stopping to attack is considered ending your movement, even if you continue to move after the attack.