Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Christian" data-source="post: 270850" data-attributes="member: 381">Pardon me for continuing (I know I'm not going to change anybody's mind but I can't help myself):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?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? If so, how close do the enemies have to be to close their ranks and prevent non-tumblers from moving through?The solution in my previous post is simple, easy to enforce, and doesn't have constant goofiness. Of course the walker can move past the orc on the diagonal-he has to move through only one of the spaces, not both, when making that 5' move. But when *both* of the opposing diagonals are occupied (by figures, obstacles, or a combination thereof), he needs to have a legal way to move through one of the obstacles.The rules state the diagonal moves are allowed. They do not state that such a move is *always* allowed when both squares are unoccupied. It's a 'hole' in the rules, requiring the DM to use his best judgment. (This may be intentional-there's no general rule, including mine, that catches every possible configuration of figures on the grid.) Given that, I'd say that the DM's judgment call was a good one.</blockquote>

Verification