Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sullivan" data-source="post: 2132033" data-attributes="member: 28152">Ya, I noticed that. Not having an ally provide cover seems like a sound rule to prevent a group leap frogging through a conjested are to avoid AoO. Outside of that I'm not sure what can be made of it. You could say that not explicitly stating otherwise about enemy occupied squares coupled with this explicit statement means there is some sort of reason to expect cover so you can yes it does. That leap seems a tad too big to be safe. Or you could say that it should infer that traveling through any occupied square does not provide cover. Still doesn't ring particularly true. Or there is no info about cover when co-occupying a square so you assume no such thing exists. *shrug* Like when picking a valedictorion from a class of C- and below students, this looks to me like the most desirable loser. Personally it would make more sense to me that you just pick a side that you'll pass the enemy on and you are vulnerable from that side that one but not the other side that where the enemy is basically acting as a shield. But there simply is no RAW basis for that, and in fact it goes against the basic D&D combat concept of an atomic '5 square (it is treated as a space with a homogenous state, having no subdivisions within it).</blockquote>