D&D 5E Diagonally Questions

[maritimo80]

Imagine a house with a door 5ft. (1 square)
A character is inside the house, the square right of the door, and an enemy arrives on the square outside the house in front of the door, opens it, and decides to attack the character diagonally.

1- The enemy can attack the character diagonally, even with a wall?




2- The enemy can move diagonally?



3- The enemy can move diagonally with the character blocking the door?

 

[fjw70]

I say yes, no, and no. I never allow diagonal movement with a hard corner such as a wall.

 

[MerricB]

The answers to the questions are "whatever your DM deems appropriate".

More detailed grid rules are possibly be in the DMG.

In some previous editions, (1) the character would have partial cover, (2) could not move diagonally past a corner (3E & 4E), (3) is stopped by (2), but a character could move diagonally between two enemies (3E & 4E).

Cheers!

 

[Mishihari Lord]

For me,
1 Assuming both are right handed, enemy cannot attack player but player can attack enemy. RL Medieval fortifications were often built with this in mind.
2 Yes
3 I'd improvise some kind of contest of strengthf

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

There are no squares.

 

[Nefzyflin]

1 - I allow this with half cover for both pc and enemy.

2 - I allow this as well. I treat the target square in your example as Difficult Terrain, and the pc can take an OA.

3 - I would not allow this. I consider the door totally blocked. The enemy could use the Shove rule and then enter if successful.

That's how I choose do it. At least until the DMG is in my hands.

Nef

 

[KarinsDad]

I have the same answers as most everyone else (1 half cover bonus, 2 not allowed, 3 not allowed), but I wanted to point out that in the case of number 2, the enemy could move (north) through the door and then move (west) into the yellow square. This requires two squares of movement and provokes an OA, but it is still legal. Unless there is some hazard in the square immediately north of the door, there would be no reason to attempt a diagonal move to the yellow square since it would provoke regardless (and even best cast, it would still be difficult terrain to move directly northwest around the wall, so it would typically take the same amount of movement).

 

[Mistwell]

There are no squares. Does the DM want the guy to be in a position to attack? If yes then he can attack, if no he can't.

If your conception of the battlefield couldn't function without a grid to look at rather than using just words to describe it, then you're probably overthinking it and looking for rules where they're not intended to be in this edition.

 

[KarinsDad]

There are no squares. Does the DM want the guy to be in a position to attack? If yes then he can attack, if no he can't.

If your conception of the battlefield couldn't function without a grid to look at rather than using just words to describe it, then you're probably overthinking it and looking for rules where they're not intended to be in this edition.

Page 192. Variant: Playing on a Grid

It is intended as a perfectly reasonable option in this edition, and it is likely that a high percentage of tables play with some form of grid.


Also, [MENTION=6782370]maritimo80[/MENTION], diagonal movement through a corner of a wall is not allowed using the grid variant as per page 192. So, that answers questions #2 and #3 for you.

 

[Nefzyflin]

[MENTION=6782370]maritimo80[/MENTION], diagonal movement through a corner of a wall is not allowed using the grid variant as per page 192. So, that answers questions #2 and #3 for you.[/QUOTE]

I agree that I go against RAW for this specific case.

I still allow it in my game for now.

Nef