Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Will" data-source="post: 272270" data-attributes="member: 5566">There's another issue about the 'corner' argument.123456If 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.</blockquote>

Verification