How many people can be in a 5'X5' square?

[kreynolds]

Actually, I do have an idea I've been there, and now I'm going to impart a few unsolicted words of wisdom, drawn from my own experiences:

1. Never respond to a post with a nasty tone, unless you do so in the most civil manner possible, totally ignoring the nastiness.

2. Stick to game issue, and never, ever bring in personalities (see #1 above for what to do if someone eklse does it).

3. If someone says you are stating something that you believe you are not, don't say "I didn't say that." Instead, ask why they think you said it, and take the opportuntiy to make your position clearer. Assume that you were not clear enough in your communication and try again.

4. Don't defend youself as if you were being personally attacked. Assume the best, and keep all debate civil. Trust the board moderators to monitor and stop uncivil dialog.

Trust me. These things work. It's how we keep a civil society.

Of course, the other option is to just yell, scream and fight with each other until one side finally quits from exhaustion.

Of course, this is good advice, but not suited to everyone. Nevertheless, I do try. However, I'm only willing to try for so long. I have a very small bull<bleep!>-o-meter.

 

[Caliban]

Hey, if you think that sharing a square with a comrade in a 5-foot wide corridor in the middle of combat as a fireball comes roaring at your face is still a situation in which you could duck out of the way even though it's not your turn...well...I don't think I need to say anything more on that.

Your pretty much full of it here. There's plenty of room for both people to duck out of the way, if they jump in opposite directions. (One drops to the floor, the other jumps up, both press back against opposite walls, etc. Besides, it never says where you go when you make your reflex save against a fireball.)


Their movement is not anywhere near as limited as it would be if you are in a 2.5 square shaft. I could see a penalty on their Reflex saves, but nothing in that passage from the DMG seems to justify negating their reflex save altogether.

You are comparing a situation that slightly constrains your movement to a situation that greatly constrains your movement.

 

[kreynolds]

Your pretty much full of it here.

Grand input.

There's plenty of room for both people to duck out of the way, if they jump in opposite directions. (One drops to the floor, the other jumps up, both press back against opposite walls, etc. Besides, it never says where you go when you make your reflex save against a fireball.)

You're interpretation.

You are comparing a situation that slightly constrains your movement to a situation that greatly constrains your movement.

Incorrect. It was a statement showing that the rules are circumstantial. They change given the situation. They require judgement based on what's on the situation. You took it too literally.

You are going to need to actually support your interpretation this time

See previous answer.

instead of just making vague assertions that you never back up then and aggressively putting down anyone who disagrees with you.

I already backed them up.

 

[Pielorinho]

Not to be a toady or anything, but Artoomis, I just wanna commend you on your tone: you set a good example to me personally, and have persuaded me to hold back unnecessary sarcasm when I otherwise would've made a fool of myself.

Thanks for being a great poster!
Daniel

 

[Caliban]

Grand input.

Right up there with yours, isn't it?

You're interpretation.

And a simple reading of the rules supports it, unlike your interpretation.

Incorrect. It was a statement showing that the rules are circumstantial. They change given the situation. They require judgement based on what's on the situation. You took it too literally.

No, you were simply wrong. The rule on when you can't use evasion/improved evasion is pretty clear, and it isn't nearly as circumstantial as you are making it out to be.

Being limited to a 2.5 square tunnel (4.25 square feet) is much much more restrictive than being limited to half of a 5 foot square tunnel (12.5 square feet available). It's simple math.

You were pretty obviously attempting to apply it inappropriately, and got all cranky when people called you on it.

See previous answer.

Your previous answer was inadequate. I suggest that you actually think about it before you reply next time.

I already backed them up.

Not very well, as numerous people have pointed out. Face it, your interpretation is simply incorrect in this instance.

 

[kreynolds]

Right up there with yours, isn't it?

Not from my point of view.

And a simple reading of the rules supports it, unlike your interpretation.

Prove it.

No, you were simply wrong. The rule on when you can't use evasion/improved evasion is pretty clear, and it isn't nearly as circumstantial as you are making it out to be.

Again, I ask that you prove it. Show me that I'm wrong.

You were pretty obviously attempting to apply it inappropriately, and got all cranky when people called you on it.

First, tell me how you think I am trying to apply it, then we'll start from there. Secondly, I got cranky when I received, what I interpreted to be, a rather rude reply from EOL. EOL explained what he meant and apologized if it sounded rude. I apologized for snapping at him.

Your previous answer was inadequate. I suggest that you actually think about it before you reply next time.

Like I said, tell me how you think I'm trying to apply it.

Not very well, as numerous people have pointed out.

Looks fine to me.

Face it, your interpretation is simply incorrect in this instance.

Prove it. Show me that I'm wrong. That's all I ask. If you can show me that I'm wrong, I'll back down and admit that I was wrong.

 

[kreynolds]

Being limited to a 2.5 square tunnel (4.25 square feet) is much much more restrictive than being limited to half of a 5 foot square tunnel (12.5 square feet available). It's simple math.

Sorry about the split post, but I just noticed this edit.

When you're sharing that 5-foot square with someone else, you have less room to maneuver. Simple math.

 

[Caliban]

Not from my point of view.

My, someone is cranky today.

Prove it.

I did. You conveniently snipped that portion of my post out.

Again, I ask that you prove it. Show me that I'm wrong.

See previous answer

First, tell me how you think I am trying to apply it, then we'll start from there.

See Previous post.

Like I said, tell me how you think I'm trying to apply it.

See previous post.

Prove it. Show me that I'm wrong. That's all I ask. If you can show me that I'm wrong, I'll back down and admit that I was wrong.

I did prove it.
See previous post.

 

[Artoomis]

Not to be a toady or anything, but Artoomis, I just wanna commend you on your tone: you set a good example to me personally, and have persuaded me to hold back unnecessary sarcasm when I otherwise would've made a fool of myself.

Thanks for being a great poster!
Daniel

*blush*

 

[kreynolds]

I did. You conveniently snipped that portion of my post out.
See previous answer
See Previous post.
See previous post.
I did prove it.
See previous post.

I already addressed it. You added that part of the post in after I had already begun to reply to it, thus, it's separate.