Tumbling around Corners

[ShadowPaly]

bahh. My easy answer, Can I make a 5 foot step in that situation without making a bull rush. IMHO of course.

no not a five foot step but a partial move into the square. By definition the move is not blocked. The oly issue is the AOO which is covered by the tumble roll.

 

[Kershek]

I would have allowed it. Diagonal movement is clearly allowed and putting a wall on one side shouldn't change things.

 

[Celebrim]

The real problem here is that a 5'x5' square is actually alot of space.

The DM may well have imagined his villian standing just in front of the door, effectively blocking it.

You on the other hand, imagine him 5' out from the door, effectively leaving it wide open for you to tumble through.

If he is in the middle, then you still have to shoulder by him.

I'm inclined to rule in favor of the DM, but I think the rules are on the player's side - if only by virtue of thier silence. However, the rules are the DM's vehicle, and ultimately the reality is in the DM's imagination. If he believes that the villain is standing close enough to the doorway to block it, then all he has to do is inform you of this when you declare your intention to make the tumble AND if he had previously not made this clear enough that you understood it, then he should allow you to reconsider your decision. It is so, because in his imagination it was always so.

You are being a rules lawyer when you attempt to have the rules override his imagination. It is not a contest in which your job is to catch the DM in some tactical mistake so you can 'beat him'. Even if the DM IS in error regarding the rules, be polite and discuss it with him after the session and see what he thinks. Maybe he'll rule your way in the future. But in the mean time, don't interupt the session by whining.

I think D20 is a huge improvement over earlier rules, but one thing about it is really beginning to annoy me - the over realiance on minatures.

In my experience, minatures hamper a game. They destroy the imagination. Role playing universes are supposed to be realized in the player's mind, not in what is taking place down on that pathetic little board. They have a tendancy to lead the players into imagining the scenes in third person instead of first person, and they have a tendancy to draw the player out of the experience and into the game. They also tend to encourage Player's vs. the DM 'hack & slash', as well as delay's while the character's plot thier moves like war gamers - shattering the excitement and the mood. Instead of imagining yourself surrounding the monster with your colleagues, you imagine a little group of lead figures surrounding a little cardboard cutout.

And that was the battle.

 

[Celebrim]

No, the real ultimate problem here is that everyone is insisting on describing the problem in 5' spaces and steps as if reality was organized that way.

IMAGINE THE DAMN SITUATION IN YOUR HEAD AND STOP ARGUING ABOUT FIVE FOOT SPACES!!! BRING THE FIGHT INTO A CONCRETE FORM BEFORE TRYING TO ABSTRACT IT OUT IN ORDER TO RESOLVE IT. THE RULES ARE SUPPOSED TO HELP WITH ADJUDICATING THE REALITY, NOT CREATE A REALITY THAT CONFORMS TO THE RULES WITH ALL THIER FLAWS AND LIMITATIONS. ARE WE ROLE PLAYERS ARE CHESS PLAYERS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD? WHAT IN THE HECK IS UNREASONABLE ABOUT THIS DM'S REALITY WHATEVER THE RULES MAY SAY? FIRST EDITION HAD ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS WITH THE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN CORRECTED IN THIRD EDITION. ARE YOU THE SORT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD HAVE GOT PISSED WITH A DM FOR RULING THAT THE FIRST EDITION RULE WAS WRONG EVEN IF ULTIMATELY WHAT HE RULED WAS WHAT IS NOW THE CANONICAL RULE IN THIRD EDITION? GOOD LORD, MAYBE IN FOURTH EDITION THIS WILL GET ADRESSED, BUT IN THE MEAN TIME WHO CARES WHAT THE RULES SAY.

whew. Ok, rant off. It's late, and I'm remembering just how much I hate rules lawyering.

I think the guy that asked if you were incorporeal had a real point, and I think that the DM is perfectly justified in blocking a 5' step under the same circumstances. If you really want to get through a door that someone is trying to block, make a difficult tumble check (ei through the square), or grapple him and move him, or overrun him, or something. All of this you can find rules for, but the idea is to find a rule that approximates the reality of the situation (There is a guy in a door and he doesn't want to let you through), not have the rules determine what the reality is.

 

[Christian]

You know, Celebrim, there are some decaf brands on the market now that are just as good as regular coffee ...

 

[Astlin]

<blink> You are on a rules forum and complaining about rules lawyering?

"IMAGINE THE DAMN SITUATION IN YOUR HEAD AND STOP ARGUING ABOUT FIVE FOOT SPACES!!!"

I am sory, the situation was not discribed that way. All we where given was a grid of FIVE FOOT SPACES and a few points.


* 1 2 *
* 3 4 *
* 5 * *
* 6 *
* 7 *

Could have several interpritations...

" The room is about 10' by 10' with a 5' wide hallway continuing the west wall as it goes South to the street. The thief is standing next to a book shelf at the North end of the room (opposite the hallway). The merchant is standing...

A) right in front of the thief with a look of murder in his eye.
B) in the middle of the room, between you and the exit. He is shouting for help as he draws his weapon.
C) right in front of the only exit out of the room. If you want to get past him, you are going to have to go through him."

All 3 are valid discriptions of the grid. Only 'C' would (IMO) add any penalty to a tumbling roll.

Ohh, coffee is ready...

Astlin

 

[Will]

This is why I would map walls and doors as going through the middle of squares.

So in the previous post, the door would be sitting in the middle of position 5. And if the character wants to be blocking the door, the character would _also_ be in position 5.

As for rules lawyering... the point is representing a model of what's going on. The problem boils down to varying assumptions about what the model means.

Rules help avoid problems. Frex, if someone is standing at a door, they should be right _on top_ of the door. Placing them 5' away strongly suggests someone could get behind them.

And if they _are_ guarding the door, 5' ahead, they can very well hold their action to intercept anyone trying to get behind.

-=Will

 

[KarinsDad]

This is one of the reasons I always use hexes. Any two adjacent hexes always have a hex line between them, not the line between squares n-s and e-w vs. the point between adjacent square nw-se, ne-sw.

At any rate, I think the rules are clear on this.

You can move diagonally if both squares are unoccupied. Period.

The rules do NOT state that you can only move diagonally if a side square is vacant. That's a house rule. It's a good house rule, but a house rule nonetheless.

If the Villain in the original example did not want the Rogue tumbling past him, he should have been in space 5 instead of space 3.

Will, would you say the same thing if the square labelled '3' were instead an * (5' square of solid rock)? If so, what's the justification for saying that someone can squeeze through the non-existent gap? That the rules let figures move on the diagonals?

If the DM says that there is a large enough gap there for a person to get through, sure.

If he says that there is no gap or the gap is too small, no.

Just like if the DM says that there is a wall between squares A and B, you cannot move through.

* A B *

Sure, if the corner * is empty instead, someone can just walk past (provoking an AoO). But what if it's another enemy instead? Can someone just step between them, because, again, the rules let figures move on the diagonals?

Again, you can walk between them since the rules allow it.

If so, how close do the enemies have to be to close their ranks and prevent non-tumblers from moving through?

Simple. You have to close all paths through.


* 1 2 *
* E E *
* 3 4 *

The enemies here close all paths through.


* 1 2 *
* E 3 *
* E 4 *

The enemies here do not close all paths through.


* 1 2 *
* E 3 *
* 4 E *

The enemies here do not close all paths through.

The rules state the diagonal moves are allowed. They do not state that such a move is *always* allowed when both squares are unoccupied.

The rule is A.

Just because there is no rule B that reinforces A in a given questionable situation does not mean that you can infer that a rule C that countermands rule A must exist.

Neither rule B nor rule C exist, hence, you have to rely on rule A (unless you are rule zeroing it).

 

[the Jester]

In my campaign I've ruled that you can't move through a corner diagonally. Essentially that amounts to walking through the walls.

 

[Astlin]

In my campaign I've ruled that you can't move through a corner diagonally. Essentially that amounts to walking through the walls.

I take it you never played any ASCII adventure games before.

It is not walking through walls, it is an abstract method of keeping track of where you are.


* * * *
* 1 2 *
* * 3 *
* 4 * *
5 * * *

4 represent (to me) part of a 5' wide path on a diagonal. Not a perfect 5' square opening completely surounded by stone.

Astlin