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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Christian" data-source="post: 272347" data-attributes="member: 381">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.</blockquote>

Verification