Tumbling around Corners

[Artoomis]

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

Of course, you shouldn't be allowed to walk though corners if the neighboring squares are occupied, but that's been covered above by others. Otherwise, it's simply a way of saying you can move to that location without having to move in 90 degree increments only.

I'd have allowed the tumbling in the original post since only one diagonal was occupied along the movement path. This represents you tumbling around the opponent. Naturally, such movement takes 15-feet as you went through two diagonals.

 

[Christian]

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.

I think I've posted to one of your threads on hexes before, KD. I think you're right, but I doubt we'll ever sway the bulk of the gaming community.

I still disagree with your last two paragraphs, though. It's not at all clear to me-in fact, I can't find anwhere in the rules that say that the diagonal (or even the orthoganal) five-foot move is always available. That's because whether the move can be made depends on exactly what obstacles exist; and whether a given set of obstacles prevents a given move is *entirely* a DM call.

I wouldn't call my rule a house rule, even. It's a rule of thumb that I use to help adjudicate this type of situation, which is (rightly) not covered in the official ruleset.

The rules can't and shouldn't tell anyone when there is or isn't enough room to squeeze by someone. It depends on exactly how big the someone is, on exactly how wide the hallway/opening is, exactly where they're standing, etc. And you can't perfectly represent this with 5' squares, 5' hexes, or anything else. (OK, maybe 1/2" hexes would work ...) It is necessarily a DM call whether a figure can move past or must move through another figure or obstacle; and IMO, the rule I suggested is a good 'default'.

In this situation, the DM's call in the initial situation is good by definition. He decided that the particular location of the enemy in that 5' square was such that he fully blocked the doorway. (It's possible to fully block a doorway from movement in either direction, isn't it?) The only thing I would say is that the DM should make that clear to the player and allow him to alter his character's action accordingly, if the decision was made in ignorance of a situation that would be clear to the character.

The 5' grid (square or hex) is a convenience, not a straitjacket, and I believe that the d20 rules correctly treat it as such ... Here's an analogous problem on a hex grid. If you place a door/opening on a hex line, a 5' opening can be blocked be a single figure on either side. But if the opening happens to fall in the middle of a hex, a figure has to stand all the way in the doorway (a position it can't take in the other situation, actually) to fully block it. Either situation is an artifact of an arbitrary grid. You can't solve all of the problems by switching the grid shape.

OK, you can solve most of them, but you get my point, I hope.

 

[KarinsDad]

I still disagree with your last two paragraphs, though. It's not at all clear to me-in fact, I can't find anwhere in the rules that say that the diagonal (or even the orthoganal) five-foot move is always available. That's because whether the move can be made depends on exactly what obstacles exist; and whether a given set of obstacles prevents a given move is *entirely* a DM call.

However, the original post did not indicate any obstacles within the target space. Basing the ruling off of the information supplied, the rules support it since the rules support diagonal movement and do not disallow it based on what occupies side squares.

The only movement in the game that is disallowed with regard to an opponent is moving through an occupied space (be it occupied with a wall, an opponent, or whatever, without a Bull Rush or something). But, if nothing is occupying the space you are attempting to move into, you can do it (as far as the rules allow).

In this situation, the DM's call in the initial situation is good by definition. He decided that the particular location of the enemy in that 5' square was such that he fully blocked the doorway. (It's possible to fully block a doorway from movement in either direction, isn't it?) The only thing I would say is that the DM should make that clear to the player and allow him to alter his character's action accordingly, if the decision was made in ignorance of a situation that would be clear to the character.

Doorway? What doorway? The original poster never mentioned a doorway.

The original diagram has a corridor entrance and a 5 foot wide one at that.

The original diagram has an opponent not in the corridor entrance, rather 2.5 feet in front of it.

If the DM wants to indicate that the opponent is actually within the corridor entrance, he should place him either within the corridor, or put half squares around the entrance (basing the square system off of the villain's location as opposed to the walls).

Here's an analogous problem on a hex grid. If you place a door/opening on a hex line, a 5' opening can be blocked be a single figure on either side. But if the opening happens to fall in the middle of a hex, a figure has to stand all the way in the doorway (a position it can't take in the other situation, actually) to fully block it. Either situation is an artifact of an arbitrary grid. You can't solve all of the problems by switching the grid shape.

Well, we allow half hexes in my game, so, you actually could resolve this problem if you really wanted to.

In any case, you are correct. Any grid system is artificial. But, if the rules for the artificial system say that you can move diagonally and there are no rules for limiting that, then by default they allow it unless there is an obstacle between the two diagonal spaces. Your definition of what an obstacle may be differs from mine. My definition is that the space you are going to must be blocked, not spaces around it.

Think of a square grid system as a hex system with 8 spaces around it instead of 6 (i.e. an octagon-like system, even though such a thing is impossible in 2-D space). Once you get to a system where movement between all spaces is equivalent, then real world geometry does not affect the situation. It merely becomes a case of whether the space you are moving to is occupied or not.

 

[Christian]

The only movement in the game that is disallowed with regard to an opponent is moving through an occupied space (be it occupied with a wall, an opponent, or whatever, without a Bull Rush or something). But, if nothing is occupying the space you are attempting to move into, you can do it (as far as the rules allow).

That's not true. There could be a wall along the line of the square. Both squares are unoccupied-but the wall forms a barrier that must be penetrated or bypassed, in spite of the fact that the 5' orthogonal move is 'legal'.

There are a lot of questions that a DM might need to answer. How high of a wall can be stepped over, how high requires a Jump check? How big a gap in the wall would suffice for a size Medium creature to slip through? A size Small? Etc. The game system does not attempt to answer these questions-it deals only with the situation where the target square is occupied, the others are left to the DM's discretion. My contention is that this applies to the diagonal move just as well-and that how the DM decides to handle situations in which small spaces are left for diagonal movement between open squares is up to him/her.

If the DM wants to indicate that the opponent is actually within the corridor entrance, he should place him either within the corridor, or put half squares around the entrance (basing the square system off of the villain's location as opposed to the walls).

Hey-there's nothing in the d20/PH rules about half squares! I don't need no house rules, thank you!

 

[Stalker0]

I don't see what the big deal is here. Have the player make a tumble check DC 20. This allows you to "move THROUGH enemy occupied territories" if he fails, he is still allowed to get through, but he is hit with an AOO.

If he stills wants to try and go through the corner, you might ask for an additonal escape artist check to get through the tight place.

With tumble, you can't ever truly block off an area with people, you can just make it really painful for people going through them.

 

[mikebr99]

I don't see what the big deal is here. Have the player make a tumble check DC 20. This allows you to "move THROUGH enemy occupied territories" if he fails, he is still allowed to get through, but he is hit with an AOO.

And that is why tumble is broken as it is in the phb...

 

[Christian]

DC 25. That was, in fact, the initial argument-should the Tumble DC be 15 or 25? And that certainly makes a big difference, believe me ...

Whether Tumble is broken is another argument entirely.

 

[mikebr99]

Whether Tumble is broken is another argument entirely.

Yeah... but it has been a while.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yeah... but it has been a while.

Yeah, but we probably should start that up again in a different thread.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's not true. There could be a wall along the line of the square. Both squares are unoccupied-but the wall forms a barrier that must be penetrated or bypassed, in spite of the fact that the 5' orthogonal move is 'legal'.

If there is a wall along the line of the square, is not at least one of those two squares partially occupied by a wall?