Simple but significant movement clarification

[MacavityCat]

In ed3.5 there was the concept of opposed diagonal corners such that enemy could not simply move between to PCs that were adjacent, be it along a square edge or by a corner.

There is no such stated restriction in Ed 4 and page 283 diagonal movement would appear to permit it as the restriction on movement in enemy occupied squares is for moving through the square. In the case of a diagonally opposed corner the enemy is technical not moving through either of the occupied squares but diagonally across the corner.

The reason for the clarification is clerical Knight's of Valor. If opposed diagonals exist then most medium creatures can effectively be imprisoned by this spell as the Knight can not be attacked, so can take no damage or be bull rushed out of the way. As allies the knights block enemy movement.

Was the intent for opposed diagonals to go or is this an ommision in the rules or is Knights of Valor broken?

 

[Bagpuss]

In ed3.5 there was the concept of opposed diagonal corners such that enemy could not simply move between to PCs that were adjacent, be it along a square edge or by a corner.

There was? I thought that was just a popular house rule.

 

[Jhaelen]

In ed3.5 there was the concept of opposed diagonal corners such that enemy could not simply move between to PCs that were adjacent, be it along a square edge or by a corner.

I never heard about anything like that.

You cannot move diagonally around a wall corner. Is that what you mean?

 

[the Jester]

In ed3.5 there was the concept of opposed diagonal corners such that enemy could not simply move between to PCs that were adjacent, be it along a square edge or by a corner.

Not to the best of my knowledge there wasn't.

Given how much movement is a cool part of 4e combat, I have absolutely no problem with this kind of shift or move. Gives the fighters more combat challenge opportunities.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I can see the logic of it. The problem is the grid imposes a weird directionality to tactics. If a line of characters stands in a row WITH the grid, then they are an impenetrable line. If they happen to be diagonal to the grid, then all of a sudden they are still packed just as close together, but enemies can just walk right between them.

It doesn't seem like a terrible house rule to me to say two creatures corner to corner prevent diagonal movement between them.

I don't really see the problem with the Knights Of Unyielding Valor either. There are some configurations of the knights that will block enemies from coming at you from certain directions, but that is true anyway. Granted the house rule means there are MORE such configurations, but in no case is there a configuration that stops all attempts to get close to the caster (or anyone else).

In any case I wouldn't prevent melee attacks through a diagonal past 2 enemies, just movement. If someone behind the front rank wants to be out of melee range, they can shift back a square. It means a straight row of defenders is SLIGHTLY more solid than a diagonal one, but the difference is pretty small, and I would just rationalize it as people do move around slightly. No square grid is ever going to be perfect.

 

[Oompa]

Adjacent characters are not quiet impassible, you get 2 OA when trying to pass right through them though..

And don't forget that in real life two squares would be 3 meter or 10 feet.. That is a lot of space for two persons to stand side by side..

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Adjacent characters are not quiet impassible, you get 2 OA when trying to pass right through them though..

And don't forget that in real life two squares would be 3 meter or 10 feet.. That is a lot of space for two persons to stand side by side..

Yeah, but it is the STRANGE fact that you CANNOT stand in a row and be impassible unless that line is exactly north-south or east-west. The mentioned house rule seems to be intended to address that anomaly.

Now, the opposite rule could in theory exist, that a monster can 'shove between' two horizontally/vertically aligned characters, but it is to say the least an awkward rule to contemplate since the monster has to violate several basic assumptions of movement in that case.

Anyway, I doubt many people are going to really worry about it too much. It certainly hasn't come up in any of my games.

 

[Nytmare]

Yeah, but it is the STRANGE fact that you CANNOT stand in a row and be impassible unless that line is exactly north-south or east-west.

Remember that two people standing in two adjacent NS/EW squares are not necessarily standing in a perfect NS or EW line. The two people in that roughly 5 foot by 10 foot space CAN just as easily be standing diagonally and are impassable.

With all the other abstractions in 4th edition, people shouldn't have any problems convincing their brains to accept that the battlemap is only a 2 dimensional, non-Euclidian, and quantum representation of a 3 dimensional space.

It goes beyond simply remembering that a square is roughly 25 square feet, you also have to wrestle with the idea that the roughly 25 square foot area it represents is not necessarily a 5 foot by 5 foot square that lives in a pretty, square grid.

Three people standing in three squares in an "L" shape can be describing three people standing diagonally in a line, three people in a semi-circle, or three people in an equilateral triangle, depending on the circumstances.

For the same reasons that a 5 square long piece of rope appears to be longer when held out diagonally on a battlemap than it does when it's held orthoganally, you can not expect to take 3 dimensions, hammer them into a dimension-warping battle grid, and expect diagonals to follow the same exact rules you're used to them having in the real world.

I'd be afraid that introducing house rules that try to cement things more solidly into "real-world space" are just going to re-emphasize the other things that don't follow those rules.

 

[Quaestor]

Yeah, but it is the STRANGE fact that you CANNOT stand in a row and be impassible unless that line is exactly north-south or east-west. The mentioned house rule seems to be intended to address that anomaly.

Yeah, I hate that, too. Unfortunately, it is a fundamental problem with the geometry of the square grid used in dnd. With a hex grid, this problem and many others would be non-issues.

Quaestor the Wanderer

 

[Nytmare]

Yeah, I hate that, too. Unfortunately, it is a fundamental problem with the geometry of the square grid used in dnd. With a hex grid, this problem and many others would be non-issues.

While making things like "anything larger than one hex" kind of complicated.