Tumbling around Corners

[Astlin]

"Of course, you shouldn't be allowed to walk though corners if the neighboring squares are occupied..."

3 squares cover 15'.
2 diagonal squares cover 14'.

By the same logic, you should not be able to move through a square that is flanked by occupied squares.

I think some of you people are missing the simple fact that this is an ABSTRACT representation of movement (unless you are RPing a 5x5 jello-cube). You are not walking through the corner, you are walking around the corner.


Astlin

 

[Artoomis]

I'll attempt to make this easier.

If you move diagonally, you obviously must move through at least part of one or the other of the two squares that are on either side of you as you move. That is:

AB
CD

Moving from A to D means you must be moving, at least partially, though B and/or C. That's obvious, really, isn't it? If that's not obvious to you, then just move alomng, there's nothing to see here.

With that in mind, if "C" is occupied by a wall (on the north side) or a creature, then you consider that you are partially moving only through square "B" as you move to "D."

This is common sense - there is no hard and fast rule for this.

Now, if both "B" and "C" were occupied by bad guys, I'd say that you'd have to move through at least one of the enemy-occupied squares to get from "A" to "D".

Just apply a little common sense and it all works out, I think.

 

[Will]

There's another issue about the 'corner' argument.

12
34
56

If 3 is an enemy, one could argue that the enemy is in the upper right corner of the square, thus blocking movement from 1-4. Er. But what prevents the person at 1 from _also_ being in the upper right corner of 1?

If there was a person in 3 and 2, and you described them being right next to one another, blocking any movement along the diagonal... well, then the guy in 3 would not be blocking most of the rest of the square, and the character should be able to move from 1-3-5.

The simple fact is that one normal opponent in a 10' wide corridor can't block the corridor, wherever they are standing. They threaten anyone moving through, true.

So my rule would be that the person in 3 can choose to stand in whatever corner or subdivision they want, but this is going to leave a clear path for a tumble, wherever they stand.

Oh, and just to clarify further... the whole reason why tumbling 'through a space' isn't threat, it's that you're going right between the legs/over the toes of someone. This is why it's hard. You're rushing _through_ where a person is standing.

Again, the grid is a model of more fluid positions. If you consider someone's 'space' to be 2.5' in diameter, then the corners don't _count_. The fact that the corner happens to be labeled that person's square is an artifact of the model. Which is why diagonals are ignorable as 'through'.

To accept the artifact and then get rid of a rule that 'doesn't make sense' is contradictory, IMO.

 

[Christian]

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?

Of course. But each square is able to be occupied by a figure-that's the point. Despite the fact that a figure could occupy either the square on the north side or the square on the south side of the wall, the figure cannot make the 5' orthogonal move between the squares which would normally be legal.

At least, I don't think it can make that move-although, as far as I can tell, the rules don't explicitly prohibit it.

 

[Christian]

Again, the grid is a model of more fluid positions. If you consider someone's 'space' to be 2.5' in diameter, then the corners don't _count_. The fact that the corner happens to be labeled that person's square is an artifact of the model. Which is why diagonals are ignorable as 'through'.

I assume you mean 2.5' in radius-otherwise, you could fit four Medium creatures in a 5' square.

The issue is, the 'gap' between two figures in diagonal corners on this model is almost exactly 2'. Now, the question is, is a 2' gap enough for a size Medium creature to squeeze through? In the example given, the corner wall cut off a whole 5' square. The 'gap' in the initial circumstance was approximately 1' wide. The DM ruled that that 1' wide gap was not enough for a normal figure to step through, and therefore the tumbler needed to make the DC 25 roll as if he were moving through the occupied square.

The most important point I want to make here in the Rules forum is that there is no rule for this in the book. It is a DM call whether a given gap in an obstacle is wide enough to permit movement for a creature of a given size. As a judgement call, the original DM's call is not subject to review under the NFL instant replay rule. (Or whatever.) (The second most important point is that the ruling was pretty reasonable, but I'll set that aside for the moment.) There's no way to make a standardized rule about when a move (diagonal or orthogonal) can be made based on obstacles and gaps of infinitely varying sizes. It is necessarily a DM call, and was therefore wisely left out of the rulebook.

How to treat a creature as an obstacle to movement is a question of this same type-the differences that a creature doesn't fill its entire square, and can be evaded/moved with a tumble/bull rush, are really immaterial. (An inanimate obstacle could be smaller than a full square, could be low enough to jump, or light enough to be pushed aside/smashed through by a strong character.) It is a matter for the DM to decide given the precise circumstances, not for the rulebook to determine by a rigid, arbitrary rule. (And to clarify my original statement-the rule I suggested was intended as a good rule of thumb, not a good house rule to add to the game.) Each situation needs to be judged on its merits, and the DM response to, "I'll tumble past him into the hallway" should be something like, "It doesn't look like you can squeeze by-you'll have to make a DC25 tumble check. Do you still want to try it?"
And I do not believe that the rulebook makes any claim in this regard that has to be rule zero'd away.

 

[Stalker0]

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

That's why my group started using countertumble rules a long time ago, really helps with the balance.

 

[Astlin]

...Moving from A to D means you must be moving, at least partially, though B and/or C. That's obvious, really, isn't it? If that's not obvious to you, then just move alomng, there's nothing to see here.

Lets see if this helps:

http://www.enworld.org/Eric/3eoldnews13.htm

Diagonal Movement: WotC's Sean Reynolds addresses the issue of moving diagonally on a 5' square grid (on the 3E message board):
Your first diagonal square counts as 5', your second counts as 10', your third as 5', fourth as 10', and so on. These are normal moves and follow the normal AOO rules (in other words, there's nothing _more_ risky about going diagonally than up/down/left/right).

It does NOT matter what is in B and/or C. You are moving from empty adjacent square to empty adjacent square. Just because it is on the diagonal does not make it harder to get past than if they are lined up like this:
OAO
BOC
ODO



Astlin

 

[KarinsDad]

Just apply a little common sense and it all works out, I think.

Common sense is often relative to point of view.

If a character can oppose another character from moving into his square from an adjacent non-diagonal square, then he merely has to move side to side upwards of 5 feet in order to accomplish this.

If a character can oppose another character from moving into his square from an adjacent diagonal square, then he has to move side to side upwards of 7.07 feet in order to accomplish this.

Flip the "squares" 45 degrees and then figure out how many opponents can hold a 35 foot wide corridor (say a 35 foot wide corridor that is 45 degrees off of main rooms).

If you do not flip the squares, then 7 people are required to hold a 35 foot wide corridor.

If you do flip the squares and use the any diagonal movement requires moving through a side square logic, then suddenly you have a new problem:

5 characters can hold a line 35 feet wide. In fact, even 4 characters can hold it (see diagram below).

"Common Sense"-wise, that makes no sense either.

But, that is what the argument that claims that Tumble is not allowed diagonally allows.


Of course, that problem is difficult to solve regardless of how you attempt to do it. You really cannot fit 7 characters diagonally across 5 squares in a 45 degree corridor.

The best you can probably do is place opponents in adjacent squares every other diagonal square to hold the line as per either of the following (depending on whether you are in a 4 space with half spaces or 5 space diagonal):


h - - - - - - - - - h *
* h - - - - - - - X X h *
* * h - - - - - X - - - h *
* * * h - - - X X - - - - h *
* * * * h - X - - - - - - Y h *
* * * * * h X - - - - - Y - - h *
* * * * * * h - - - - Y Y - - - h *
* * * * * * * h - - Y - - - - - - h *
* * * * * * * * h Y Y - - - - - - - h *
* * * * * * * * * h - - - - - - - - - h *

* = wall
h = half square
- = empty square
X = character where main line is 4 squares wide
Y = character where main line is 5 squares wide

 

[The_lone_gunman]

This seems like a real simple one to me.......

Make a tumble check DC 20. A bit harder than just going around him but not as hard as going through him.....

TLG

 

[mikebr99]

That's why my group started using countertumble rules a long time ago, really helps with the balance.

We are using the Song & Silence version... with house rules for tumble failures that allows a person to be stopped by an AoO that gets through the tumble.