Tumbling around Corners

[Caliban]

This debate is silly.

You can tumble up to 20 feet. If the DM is going to quibble about tumbling from 1 -> 4 -> 5, then instead tumble from 1 ->2->4->*->5. You have now tumbled from 1 to 5 without cutting the corner of square 3.

(For what it's worth, I believe the rules support tumbling diagonally without "going through" the adjacent squares. But if there is a wall along one of the sides, I don't allow you to move across that diagonal, not even with a 5' step.)

 

[Christian]

This debate is silly.

You can tumble up to 20 feet. If the DM is going to quibble about tumbling from 1 -> 4 -> 5, then instead tumble from 1 ->2->4->*->5. You have now tumbled from 1 to 5 without cutting the corner of square 3.

* is a wall. Even Tumble doesn't let you move through a wall. (Unless that's an Epic Tumble thing. )

(For what it's worth, I believe the rules support tumbling diagonally without "going through" the adjacent squares. But if there is a wall along one of the sides, I don't allow you to move across that diagonal, not even with a 5' step.)

I agree on both counts, I think. (Oh, and the first one, that the debate is silly ... Please don't ask me why I'm in it.) But let me make sure my understanding jibes with that last comment:
(1) A diagonal move around a corner, even with all three spaces open, is not permitted by you, due to the obstruction in the fourth space.
(2) This is a judgment call on an issue which is not determined by the rules, viz. the extent to which an unobstructed and sufficiently wide path is needed between two spaces in order to move directly between them.

Am I understanding correctly?

 

[Caliban]

* is a wall. Even Tumble doesn't let you move through a wall. (Unless that's an Epic Tumble thing. )

Oops, my bad. Then I would agree with the DM. You would have to do the DC 25 for tumbling through an opponents square.

I agree on both counts, I think. (Oh, and the first one, that the debate is silly ... Please don't ask me why I'm in it.) But let me make sure my understanding jibes with that last comment:
(1) A diagonal move around a corner, even with all three spaces open, is not permitted by you, due to the obstruction in the fourth space.

Correct. This usually comes up in regards to doorways when I play. I won't let you do a diagonal 5' step past someone standing in the doorway.

(2) This is a judgment call on an issue which is not determined by the rules, viz. the extent to which an unobstructed and sufficiently wide path is needed between two spaces in order to move directly between them.

Am I understanding correctly?

If you can't be partially in both squares (because one of the sides is filled completely by a corner or wall) , you have to be completely in one square as you go past. That's the way I see it anyway.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you can't be partially in both squares (because one of the sides is filled completely by a corner or wall) , you have to be completely in one square as you go past. That's the way I see it anyway.

So, you think that it makes sense for 4 opponents to be able to hold a 35 foot wide corridor (no stepping past them), just because it the walls are 45 degrees off of the squares in the main room at the end of the corridor?

Or worse yet, one character to hold a 15 foot wide corridor that is at 45 degrees to the squares?

 

[AuraSeer]

Let's see if I understand...

[color=gray]
******--------*
*****B-------**
****--B-----***
***----B---****
**------B-*****
*--------******[/color]

If I drew that right, the corridor is 30 feet wide. There are 4 bad guys (B) standing abreast, blocking the corridor. Each of them "really" takes up only 5 feet, and there should be two places where someone could walk between. However, because the grid happens to be diagonal to their formation, they appear to block the whole 30 feet of width.

KarinsDad, is that something like the situation you were thinking of?

 

[AuraSeer]

[stupid double post]

 

[Caliban]

So, you think that it makes sense for 4 opponents to be able to hold a 35 foot wide corridor (no stepping past them), just because it the walls are 45 degrees off of the squares in the main room at the end of the corridor?

Or worse yet, one character to hold a 15 foot wide corridor that is at 45 degrees to the squares?

The grid is an abstraction, not something that is physically present in the game world. If it causes problems like that, simply reorient the grid so that the corridor is straight.

It's really not a big deal.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Actually...

I think it rather is a big deal, for my games anyway. I usually draw corridors and rooms on wet/dry erase grids, and flipping 45 degrees to avoid these problems would be a horrendous undertaking, suspending combat, moving all figures off the board after recording their location, wiping away and drawing anew. Very inconvenient.

By the way, this whole diagonal problem is the same one that gives you the no AoO when moving diagonally away from diagonal flankers. In other words, in this case:

XXX
ABC
XXX

B suffers one AoO when doing a double move to get away if he moves at a diagonal, or two AoOs if he goes straight up or down. This is fine, but...

AXX
XBX
XXC

in this case, B can move straight up/down/left/right and suffer one AoO, or gets to move away at a diagonal and get no AoO from anyone. This has nothing to do with walls or other "common sense" mitigating factors. This could take place on an open plain and the problem is the same. It's an artifact of the square grid.

Not that I use hexes. And, for the record, I don't think my group has yet run into a diagonal flank situation where someone moved diagonally to avoid AoO. But I don't like this one bit.

*shrug*

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad, is that something like the situation you were thinking of?

Yup.

The grid is an abstraction, not something that is physically present in the game world. If it causes problems like that, simply reorient the grid so that the corridor is straight.

Sometimes easier said then done. You have two rooms and a 45 degree corridor in between and combatants in both rooms and the corridor, it is tough to re-orient for each character’s action.

And, it is interesting that once a problem with the grid blocking movement is brought up, it is suddenly an abstraction. But, when it was tumbling past a corner, the grid was hard and fast and the character could not do it without moving into the other square. (just pulling your leg, but it is funny that perceptions on the same topic by the same person change based on the discussion point)

The point is that you basically have two options:

1) Allow diagonal movement into full unoccupied spaces because the partial space you may move into has an opponent trying to cover a 7.07 foot wide space as opposed to his normal 5 foot wide space. Then, a 35 foot wide corridor at 45 degrees would require 9 characters to seal it off completely (5/4 or 4/5) and a 15 foot wide one would require 3 characters to seal it off completely (1/2 or 2/1).

2) Disallow diagonal movement into full unoccupied spaces because the partial space you may move into has an opponent in it. Then, a 35 foot wide corridor at 45 degrees would require either 4 or 5 characters to seal it off completely and a 15 foot wide one would require 1 or 2 characters to seal it off completely . Also, a character in the intersection of two 5 foot wide corridors can prevent anyone (shy of Tumbling or Bull Rush) from going down any of the four corridors.

Personally with the ability to AoO inherent with moving past occupied spaces, I think the second one presents more problems than it solves such as:

* - X *
* X - *

being an immobile wall of opponents.

 

[Caliban]

Sometimes easier said then done. You have two rooms and a 45 degree corridor in between and combatants in both rooms and the corridor, it is tough to re-orient for each character’s action.

It's called using your imagination. You mentally re-orient the grid, and the DM rules on which 5' square will not be occupied.

It's really not that hard. Seriously.

And, it is interesting that once a problem with the grid blocking movement is brought up, it is suddenly an abstraction. But, when it was tumbling past a corner, the grid was hard and fast and the character could not do it without moving into the other square. (just pulling your leg, but it is funny that perceptions on the same topic by the same person change based on the discussion point)

*shrug* It seems that you don't understand. The grid is always an abstraction. But re-orienting the grid won't change the fact that there isn't enough room between a person and the corner for you to pass between without entering the persons square.

This is even more true when it comes to doorways.