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: 96908" data-attributes="member: 381">Well-designed rules are generally superior to arbitrary DM rulings. There are significant consistency issues-take RedshirtNo5's 5' step example at the top of this page. If the flanked person wants to take a 5' step and cast a spell, does he draw an AoO then? If so, how-he's out of range of both attackers when he casts?! If not, then why can he do that but someone flanked on the orthoganal can't?Whether using the 5'/10' method or not, you need to find a consistent method of handling the 2 square diagonal situation. There are three good general rules suggested on the first page of <a href="http://www.enworld.org/messageboards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6491&pagenumber=1" target="_blank">this</a> thread. I kind of like Caliban's myself (go figure), where passing from one square to another on the diagonal involves passing through one or another of the orthogonal squares, even if it 'costs' only 5' of movement. (The other suggestions are from Dr. Zoom, to ignore the 5'/10' rule for reach weapons, and from Wolfpunk [the solution I had been using before I read Caliban's], to count both 10' and 15' reach into the second diagonal square, since both extend past the first 5' distant square, but not as far as the 20' distant third square.) I like Caliban's because it also realistically handles this kind of situation:XM_XC|The character wants to move diagonally forward and right to get to the other side of the monster and the hallway corner. Nope-he needs to either move through the wall, or through the monster. Need to make that Tumble check to pull that one off, buster. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification