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

[kreynolds]

That's not always the best of ideas in a game.

That depends on what kind of DM you are. If you're a SciFi fan, it's a bad idea.

If there was no chance to make the save in a 5-ft-corridor in the first place, the whole 2-people-sharing-a-5-ft-square qould be moot. But, as a fact, it is possible to make a save under that circumstances. Imagine they lay flat on the floor or just find the areas where the fire is not so hot or where there's a breach in the fireball (I don't think its a solid ball of fire, it's more like a big burst, and they're not regular).

The current topic was covering two people in the square, not one. That's a whole different story in my book.

In fact, it doesn't say that you must have something to duck behind, or really much space to move, it just says that you have to be able to move and may not be confined overmuch (such as in a corridor just wide enough for you to fit in). That's rule enough for me.

I know it doesn't. I didn't say it did. Quite the contrary, as I even stated that all I require is that you have room to get around. I just have a hard time envisioning two people standing in one square in the middle of that tiny hallway automatically getting their saves, especially if grappling.

 

[EOL]

I found that rather condescending, by the way. *shrug* Anyway, I pointed you to the appropriate passages in the DMG so that you could see the answer for yourself.

I apologize if it came across as condescending that was never my intent. What I meant by "obscure quasi-legal" was something in Sage Advice in Dragon or a post from one of the designers or a common consensus on the boards after much debate or a personal conversation with Monte Cook over a beer. Something like that, since the whole how many people in a 5' square thing has been the subject of much disagreement in my campaign and I was pretty sure there was no hard and fast rule in black and white.

That's all.

 

[kreynolds]

I apologize if it came across as condescending that was never my intent.

Hey, I apologize for snapping at ya', seriously.

What I meant by "obscure quasi-legal" was something in Sage Advice in Dragon or a post from one of the designers or a common consensus on the boards after much debate or a personal conversation with Monte Cook over a beer. Something like that, since the whole how many people in a 5' square thing has been the subject of much disagreement in my campaign and I was pretty sure there was no hard and fast rule in black and white.

Well, the next time I see you post "obscure quasi-legal", at least I'll know what you mean.

 

[Grundle]

You also have to use some sort of logic. If you're in a corridor that's 5-feet wide and 10-feet high, and a fireball goes off at your feet, seriously, where are you gonna go? Left? Nope, fireball goes there. Right? Nope, fireball goes there too. Back? Again, that fireball problem. Forward. Again, that fireball problem. Up? Same thing. Down? Same thing. Quite literally, the are you are in is completely filled by the fireball, so there really isn't anywhere to go.

Sounds like you're saying that only creatures on the perimeter of an area effect should get a reflex save?!

 

[kreynolds]

Sounds like you're saying that only creatures on the perimeter of an area effect should get a reflex save?!

*sigh* No. Is this the only post you read?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

That depends on what kind of DM you are. If you're a SciFi fan, it's a bad idea.

It's generally a bad idea, unless you want as much ralism in the game as possible. And I for one don't like that.

The current topic was covering two people in the square, not one. That's a whole different story in my book.

I know. But if you argue that ONE person should not get a save in a given situation, we don't even need to start the argument about TWO persons in the same space before we solved the first problem....

[/QUOTE]
I know it doesn't. I didn't say it did. Quite the contrary, as I even stated that all I require is that you have room to get around. I just have a hard time envisioning two people standing in one square in the middle of that tiny hallway automatically getting their saves, especially if grappling.[/QUOTE]

We're not talking about grappling foes here (at least, I'm not talking about grappling foes), but about two friends (or allies) standing relatively close together. And as I said, sharing a square doesn't mean that they are standing shoulder by shoulder, but can in fact be a little away from each other. (one behind the other). That should leave them with enough space to evade an effekt: it could be more difficult, sure (and a penalty to the saves would be in order), but not impossible!

 

[0-hr]

If you're in a corridor that's 5-feet wide and 10-feet high, and a fireball goes off at your feet, seriously, where are you gonna go?

I guess, if I were quick enough, I would turn away, crouch, and cover my head & face with my arms. That way only half of my body (my back) would be exposed to the flames. As a result, I would expect to take roughly half as much damage from the brief exposure to the fire.

If I had a cloak, especially a magical one, I would sweep it in front of me so that I was shielded. If I had a shield, I would crouch behind it while the flames washed over me. Were I a rogue, I would duck behind the fighter and expect the flames to miss me completely.

If I can't make a saving throw unless I can get completely out of the area of effect, then I want a free move (in the direction of my choice) each time I do make one.

 

[reapersaurus]

EOL - just from my perception, I wanted to let you know that I knew exactly what you meant by "quasi-legal"
Further, kreynolds had NO business making believe you were condescending to him.
Further - it was quite obvious by reading the posts that kreynolds was forwarding the attitude that No Save Possible was the right legal call.

He never used the words "This is the way the core rules work", but for all intents and purposes, you did, kreynolds.

It would be refreshing if you'd just say "Yep - ya caught me - I was smokin weed there for a sec - Sorry!" and move on.

This song-and-dance shuck-and-jive back-tracking is making me lose respect for you.

Moving on.
Any DM that goes out of their way and makes up rules (denying a save vs. fireball in a smallish room) is an idiot who is needlessly manufacturing their own rules and unfairly impacting the game for the players.
Some people's recent examples are very good to show how fireball can be avoided.
Denying a save WAY overpowers the fireball spell.

Hell, if you wanted to look at it by physics, doesn't a fireball just send a wave of fire radiating out from a central point?
Haven't you all put your hand thru flame and brought it back unhurt?
By the 3E description of fireball, you could just as easily make up an interpretation that you shouldn't take ANY damage from such a temporary-wave of flame.

All this post is completely my opinion as of today, and is subject to change and my own whacked-out ideas.

 

[kreynolds]

Further, kreynolds had NO business making believe you were condescending to him.

It was my opinion. I thought he was condescending. I'm not allowed an opinion?

Further - it was quite obvious by reading the posts that kreynolds was forwarding the attitude that No Save Possible was the right legal call.

I wasn't saying that. If you take it that way, that's your problem.

He never used the words "This is the way the core rules work", but for all intents and purposes, you did, kreynolds.

No I didn't. Maybe you should pay closer attention.

It would be refreshing if you'd just say "Yep - ya caught me - I was smokin weed there for a sec - Sorry!" and move on.

Why? I didn't "get caught" doing anything. Also, I apologized to him for snapping at him, but I guess you weren't paying attention. You really ought to work on that.

This song-and-dance shuck-and-jive back-tracking is making me lose respect for you.

My heart bleeds. By the way, you coming in here long after the fires have died down, spitting accusations left and right when you don't even have a clue as to what you're talking about, that prevents me from having any respect for you in the first place. So, I guess we're even.

Any DM that goes out of their way and makes up rules (denying a save vs. fireball in a smallish room)

Again, you're not paying attention. Sad.

is an idiot who is needlessly manufacturing their own rules and unfairly impacting the game for the players.

So now you're calling people idiots? Wow. I didn't even stoop that low.

By the 3E description of fireball, you could just as easily make up an interpretation that you shouldn't take ANY damage from such a temporary-wave of flame.

You know, it looks like you just manufactured your own rule there. So, does that make you an idiot?

All this post is completely my opinion as of today, and is subject to change and my own whacked-out ideas.

Really? Seems to me it was about 80% bashing and served no other real purpose than to dredge this crap up all over again.

 

[kreynolds]

I know. But if you argue that ONE person should not get a save in a given situation, we don't even need to start the argument about TWO persons in the same space before we solved the first problem....

No. You don't know. I never argued that one person should not get a save in a 5-foot wide corridor. I don't know where you got that from.