Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 1100661" data-attributes="member: 13654">Sorry if my response was a little... stern?  I's feelin' a bit peevish but I'm all better now.When you're attacked you have no particular AC or attack penalties for being in the same square, though your ally would still be prone, so he'd have that adjustment.  If the game simply doesn't legally allow it, there aren't any specific penalties for it.  A DM could apply some if it were deemed appropriate.  A simple circumstance penalty if nothing else.  After that though, one of you would need to move to their own square.  It's generally going to be in everyone's interest to let you do so - you would not have to worry about being wrapped up in the same square with somebody and your opponents would likely be able to surround you better.  Otherwise, I would tend to assume that your ally would have to remain prone and try to stay out of your way until such time as you can move and make room for him to stand up and take serious action again.But this is one of those things where it's really better,IMO, to leave it up to the DM to rule on rather than try and cover all situations.  Too many variations on what kind of restrictions there are on the available room, what the enemy is trying to do, what the PC's are trying to do.  It's easier for the DM to make a ruling and have done with it than to write a page of official rules to cover what happens when two creatures of M size occupy a single square.I disagree because then there's no end to the rules that would have to be written.  DM's MUST be able to make rulings where there are no rules.  It is simply part of the job because there CANNOT be a rule for everything.Actually, yes.  It's far more common to see tiny or smaller creatures occupying the same square in order to attack, or for Small creatures to occupy the same square as a Huge or larger creature, than it is to see two Medium creatures trying (or being forced) to occupy the same space.Well not to put too fine a point on it but the game isn't written for living campaign DM's - it's written for us "House DM's."  Besides, if this is the sort of thing they have to seriously worry about we should all have their problems.Actually, that brings up another good argument against it - once you make it "legal" with nice, detailed rules then it becomes a tactic, not a debilitation, and do we really want to go there?  It's certainly arbitrary to simply say "No, you can't do it, period," but it's not something that ought to be encouraged in any way.  I mean, there's still other issues to consider besides AC and to-hit penalties.  Things like cover, concealment, spell effects, and I'm sure plenty more that I just can't think of off the top of my head.  If it's necessary in a rare instance in the game it can be handled as the DM sees fit.   The rest of the time the very lack of rules for it and the "no, you can't do that" treatment by the rules that do deal with the subject keeps it in the position it ought to be: Something to always be avoided, never something to be exploited - by either side of a fight.</blockquote>

Verification