I agree with [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] that by RAW this doesn't work, and I'm also pretty sure it's also against RAI. I can see the argument using RAF, but I'd say that the squeezing penalties should apply. If you want to allow this, realize you open the door (no pun intended) to potential abuse by both the players and the monsters.
D&D 5E Attacking on an ally's space
Mercule
Adventurer
FWIW, the exact same text is found on p 196 of the PHB. I need better reading comprehension.
Prakriti
Hi, I'm a Mindflayer, but don't let that worry you
Can you cite which rules you're referring to?
FWIW, I feel that it shouldn't work, but I can't find anything in the rules to justify that position.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
It's hard to say from your original post, but I think you mean that the fighter is holding the doorway, not literally holding a door.
If he's holding a doorway, he's taking up the square to fight in. He needs that square to be an effective combatant and to block the orcs - the rogue cannot occupy the square and make an attack from it at the same time.
That said... D&D 5' squares are an abstraction, and one that doesn't really make sense for any situation that isn't "waving a greatsword about". The flipside is that a 5' doorway is also an abstraction, and the two things tend to cancel out. I can't honestly imagine effectively fighting past someone standing in a typical doorway even WITH a reach weapon.
If he's holding a doorway, he's taking up the square to fight in. He needs that square to be an effective combatant and to block the orcs - the rogue cannot occupy the square and make an attack from it at the same time.
That said... D&D 5' squares are an abstraction, and one that doesn't really make sense for any situation that isn't "waving a greatsword about". The flipside is that a 5' doorway is also an abstraction, and the two things tend to cancel out. I can't honestly imagine effectively fighting past someone standing in a typical doorway even WITH a reach weapon.
LordEntrails
Hero
Ok, I want to agree with you. But where do the rules say or imply this?
The rules cover this in the Combat section:
and
If you move, attack, and move, the attack occurs between the moves - which cannot end in a creatures space.
This is further confirmed by Jeremy Crawford: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/17/attack-in-an-ally-occupied-space/
That's RAW. If you want to simulate a more fluid style of combat where the attack occurs as part of the move, instead of the "stop motion" combat that normally occurs in D&D you can do so, but like I said, I recommend using the squeezing rules if the Attack action is taken while moving through another creatures space.
and
If you move, attack, and move, the attack occurs between the moves - which cannot end in a creatures space.
This is further confirmed by Jeremy Crawford: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/17/attack-in-an-ally-occupied-space/
That's RAW. If you want to simulate a more fluid style of combat where the attack occurs as part of the move, instead of the "stop motion" combat that normally occurs in D&D you can do so, but like I said, I recommend using the squeezing rules if the Attack action is taken while moving through another creatures space.
FWIW, I read "End your move" as in you run out of movement/end your turn without using all of your movement, not that your attack breaks the move. By the same ruling, I would allow a monk to run on water, pull off an attack on an enemy as he runs by, then continue running. Or allow an Aracockra to fly, attack, then continue to fly. I would apply squeezing rules in this case though.
The problem is carryover wording from when movement was an action (3E&4E). I still get players saying "Move Action," even though there is no such thing anymore. The proper wording should be "you cannot willingly end any movement in the space of another creature, nor perform any action in the same space as a willing creature."
Of course, DM discretion is always implied. For example, technically by RAW you cannot move to stand over a fallen ally that is dying or stabilized. Arguably you cannot move to stand over a dead enemy, depending on how you define "creature's space." Since both of those are pretty dumb, every DM I know ignores it and uses common sense. I personally don't think of combat as a series of stop animations, so having a creature attack on the move, even in an allies space, makes sense to me. Rulings not Rules is one of the best concepts of 5E!
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
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.
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.
