Ok, we came upon a dilemma during gaming and it involves when you are allowed to enter a square.

Ok, so I remember reading in a rule book, not sure if it's the 3.5 PHB, D&D FAQ, or whatever (I can't find it now) but it stated if a square was partially taken up then it's ok to enter it.

I'll post a picture as an example:

Entering Partial Squares

So can a character enter a square marked in blue?

Or no?

Would there be some sort of penalties associated with this?

Also, according to the rules, standing in such a square actually provides cover to enemies attacking you in melee, since a line drawn from a character that passes through a solid object on ANY corner of a square provides cover. (which is odd, especially considering if the "cover" is "behind" your character)

Thanks for any feedback.

Ok, we came upon a dilemma during gaming and it involves when you are allowed to enter a square.

Ok, so I remember reading in a rule book, not sure if it's the 3.5 PHB, D&D FAQ, or whatever (I can't find it now) but it stated if a square was partially taken up then it's ok to enter it.

I'll post a picture as an example:

Entering Partial Squares

So can a character enter a square marked in blue?

Or no?
Would there be some sort of penalties associated with this?

Also, according to the rules, standing in such a square actually provides cover to enemies attacking you in melee, since a line drawn from a character that passes through a solid object on ANY corner of a square provides cover. (which is odd, especially considering if the "cover" is "behind" your character)

Thanks for any feedback.

Ok, we came upon a dilemma during gaming and it involves when you are allowed to enter a square.

Ok, so I remember reading in a rule book, not sure if it's the 3.5 PHB, D&D FAQ, or whatever (I can't find it now) but it stated if a square was partially taken up then it's ok to enter it.

I'll post a picture as an example:

Entering Partial Squares

So can a character enter a square marked in blue?

Or no?

Would there be some sort of penalties associated with this?

I guess it depends on how literally you see the grid. Understand, the squares do not exist in the game world. It is just a meta-gaming unit of measurement for us to understand how far we can move and how close we have to be to hit something. So if half of the square on the grid is taken up by a wall should that mean that you take penalties for putting your back to the wall? I would think not, the human body does not take up five square feet of space.

In cases like those you have circled, I would say: You may stand in the square with no penalty but threaten only that half of the square not taken up by cave wall. You could alternatively rule that you still threaten a 5' square and that the 5' starts at the wall and extends outward overlapping the adjacent square, but that would get complicated if enemies closed distance and you would have to visualize a whole second grid on top of the one on the map. I would just stick with the bolded answer.

Also, according to the rules, standing in such a square actually provides cover to enemies attacking you in melee, since a line drawn from a character that passes through a solid object on ANY corner of a square provides cover. (which is odd, especially considering if the "cover" is "behind" your character)

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

I am not sure if the Squeezing rules would apply here. I think these rules are for squeezing through a tight opening.

Granted that is more straight forward than the little areas on the OP map example, but still this should work just fine. Plus the rules are already in the book and nicely balanced.

Fighting space is very important in combat and while standing still you don't need a 5ft area add in dodging and swinging swords that are up to 4+ feat in length and you sure need that space.

For a RAW answer squeezing is the closest and easiest method to use during actual play. The other idea is to just ignore those little areas of the map and say they are just fluff, but I personally like having to deal with the environment on top of the creatures in a battle.

I believe the object granting cover has to be between you and your enemy to grant cover.

Correct it is also for this too.

The examples in the 3.5 book where really nice for this actually. As the example is an ogre (which takes a 10ft area) walks through a hall that is only 5ft wide. Obviously he should be allowed to do this and in such a case it falls under the squeezing rules.

Granted that is more straight forward than the little areas on the OP map example, but still this should work just fine. Plus the rules are already in the book and nicely balanced.

You are saying it is just as hard to walk along a wall as to walk into a space between two walls only 2.5 feet wide. That is simply not true.

You are saying that it is harder to walk next to a wall than to walk through Difficult Terrain. Also simply not true. Squeezing through a 2.5 foot wide area might be, but not walking along a wall.

And finally you are saying that walking along a wall that runs through the middle of a grid square is fundamentally different than walking along a wall that ends at the edge of a grid square. In fact while walking along a wall that ends on the edge of a grid square you suffer no penalty but when walking along a wall that runs through the middle of one you must move at half speed, take -4 to attack and -4 to AC. That makes absolutely no sense, what is the physical difference between the two walls? There is only one difference: one runs along the edge of an imaginary grid square and one runs through the middle of an imaginary grid square.

Fighting space is very important in combat and while standing still you don't need a 5ft area add in dodging and swinging swords that are up to 4+ feat in length and you sure need that space.

2.5 feet is more than enough to swing most weapons effectively. Unless you are using an exceptionally long polearm you rarely swing a weapon behind you or have part of it protruding behind you.

For a RAW answer squeezing is the closest and easiest method to use during actual play.

The other idea is to just ignore those little areas of the map and say they are just fluff

Squeezing: In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC.

When a Large creature (which normally takes up 4 squares) squeezes into a space that's 1 square wide, the creature's miniature figure occupies 2 squares, centered on the line between the 2 squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into.

A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving but it can't end its movement in an occupied square.

To squeeze through or into a space less than half your space's width, you must use the Escape Artist skill. You can't attack while using Escape Artist to squeeze through or into a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty to AC, and you lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.

The italicized portions are the penalties associated with this. I don't think that these penalties make any sense for someone walking along a wall with no physical barrier on the other side. And what if the wall takes up more than half the square? What if you only have 1 foot between the wall and the edge of your square? Do you honestly expect for a PC to have to roll and Escape Artist check to walk between the wall and the imaginary line on the floor? Do you honestly suspect he could not attack and would lose Dex to AC as well as suffer -4 to AC? That seems a little ridiculous to me.

And even if you did subscribe to the idea that penalties should be added for walking between a wall and an imaginary line on the floor do you really think that such penalties would be equal to the penalties given to someone trying to squeeze their armored bodies through 2.5 feet of space?

.

I don't think the Squeezing rules apply in any way to this scenario. I definitely disagree with you on this point.

I just went over Squeezing rules earlier before seeing the replies here, and I'd have to say I agree. As long as the square is half-covered or less for the space you're taking up, it's considered squeezing. Anymore and the square is illegit. That's been solved for me now.

It just gets weird when a creature takes up a bigger space.

Also, thanks for the melee cover rule. I thought I read something different, but it does appear that the object has to be between the attacker and the defender for it to count.

Suit yourself. I don't think that rule applies in your case. In fact I think it rather ridiculous.

None of the examples attached to the rule even talk about the situation you are asking about. The rule is explicitly talking about walking into a narrow space between two physical barriers, among several other things that, according to physics, make these penalties absolutely out of place for your scenarios.

Suit yourself. I don't think that rule applies in your case. In fact I think it rather ridiculous.

None of the examples attached to the rule even talk about the situation you are asking about. The rule is explicitly talking about walking into a narrow space between two physical barriers, among several other things that, according to physics, make these penalties absolutely out of place for your scenarios.

It only says into a space. No other considerations are give about why the space is smaller. It would seem that, in his example, the only reason you would move into these space would be because the ones adjacent where occupied. So, if they were trying to fight from that area, they would be squeezed in a tight space with a limited range of movement to manouver.

Suit yourself. I don't think that rule applies in your case. In fact I think it rather ridiculous.

So how would you solve it?

I completely agree with Shadowlord here. I think squeezing only applies when moving through a space that lies between solid obstacles, an ogre moving through a 5' doorway, for example.

In the map the OP illustrated, there'd be no squeezing for standing in a half-space, because you only have a solid obstacle on one side, not both.

I generally rule if a space is half a square or more, you can stand in it. If it's less than half a square, you can't. This is a simple solution that works in every situation I've found so far - easy for players to understand and GM to adjudicate, there's no need for squeezing, and there's generally no confusion or debate required.

This method recognises, as Shadowlord mentioned above, that squares are a meta-game concept to help us play the game, they don't actually exist in the real (fantasy) world.

Squeezing applies to more than just narrow hallways and doors. For example, there's a feat in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting that allows two mounted horsemen to share the same 10' square "without taking squeezing penalties".

Squeezing applies to more than just narrow hallways and doors. For example, there's a feat in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting that allows two mounted horsemen to share the same 10' square "without taking squeezing penalties".

I don't have my book open in front of me, so I'm risking contradicting RAW, but this is the way I play it - half a square you can stand in, less than half and you can't - it's a lot easier for everyone to understand and keeps the game moving. In six years of playing/GMing home games and cons, I've never seen anyone play it any differently. It may be one of those cases of RAW falling aside to game expediency.

So what is your solution?

I will reiterate this portion: You are saying that walking along a wall that runs through the middle of a grid square is fundamentally different than walking along a wall that ends at the edge of a grid square. In fact while walking along a wall that ends on the edge of a grid square you suffer no penalty but when walking along a wall that runs through the middle of one you must move at half speed, take -4 to attack and -4 to AC. That makes absolutely no sense, what is the physical difference between the two walls? There is only one difference: one runs along the edge of an imaginary grid square and one runs through the middle of an imaginary grid square.

The grid is a meta-gaming tool. It is not there in the fantasy world and should have no bearing on the fantasy world other than to measure distance; it is not a physical barrier and therefore cannot impede you.

...

It would seem that, in his example, the only reason you would move into these space would be because the ones adjacent where occupied. So, if they were trying to fight from that area, they would be squeezed in a tight space with a limited range of movement to manouver.

Squeezing applies to more than just narrow hallways and doors. For example, there's a feat in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting that allows two mounted horsemen to share the same 10' square "without taking squeezing penalties".

As far as being squeezed between a barrier and an enemy: you should prepare for PCs and DM alike to use the tactic to their advantage if they discover it. You bull rush an enemy into a 2.5' space and he will be at a significant disadvantage. You bull rush him into a 2' space or less and he is rendered near useless. Good tactic for a Fighter to have his Rogue buddy standing near the wall waiting for him to bull rush the enemy, in a 2' space or smaller the enemy loses Dex to AC and can be the target of Sneak Attack. In these cases it has nothing at all to do with the imaginary grid square, or it shouldn't, but rather with the fact that you are pressed between two physical barriers.

However, oddly enough if you subscribe to that then the tactic will only work when the map happens to have half squares at the edge of the battle ground. If it is a full square then the guy pressed up against the wall takes no penalty. If you press so far that the two of you are both in that same square then one of you falls prone because you cannot share the same square.

However, these are also both examples of being between two physical barriers.

Shadowlord presents some good arguments, in much more detail than I would have gone to the trouble of, but it backs up my theory of keeping things simple, it avoids further corner-cases and unintended outcomes such as the ones Shadowlord mentions.

You can scour rulebooks for answers, but uncover further contradictions, though a healthy dose of common-sense will usually serve you well.

Suit yourself. I don't think that rule applies in your case. In fact I think it rather ridiculous.

None of the examples attached to the rule even talk about the situation you are asking about. The rule is explicitly talking about walking into a narrow space between two physical barriers, among several other things that, according to physics, make these penalties absolutely out of place for your scenarios.

Here's how I would handle this situation:

If more than half of a square is unobstructed, treat it as a normal open square.

If more than half of a square is obstructed, a creature cannot enter that square.

If more than half of a square is difficult terrain, treat the whole square as difficult terrain.

If less than half of a square is difficult terrain, treat the whole square as normal terrain.

This may not satisfy those who are looking for a game that closely matches real-world physics, but then neither should half of the game's rules. Movement in general has been forced to fit within the context of a set of balanced game rules which bear only a superficial resemblance to real-world physics. The grid is similar, in that it exists in order to apply movement and combat rules.

Outside of combat, or any other dangerous situation, I'd allow a character of the appropriate size to stand or pass through a partial square, of course.

I likes MJ66's simple solution.

On a related question, how does everyone handle the 'half squares' on the edge of a room when using Dwarven Forge? I would like to count them as squares but the truth is it causes a miniature traffic jam where the figures do not fit. I was think of saying "this is DM space for the furniture only".

EDIT: I was also thinking of having people put figures on the corner between four squares. Wiht half squares on four sides of a room it actually works out.

Shadowlord wrote:

However, these are also both examples of being between two physical barriers.

Mine isn't. You can have a mile of open prairie on either side of the 10' square that the horses are occupying.

You have two horses, each taking up 10' squares, so normally they are supposed to take up an area 10' long and 20' wide. They could squeeze down to 5' wide if for some reason they wanted to, so each horse would take up a space 5' wide and 10' long (3.0 style). Normally this would invoke squeezing penalties, because you are intentionally making your own space smaller than it's supposed to be; the feat obviates this. (the relevant application is to make a tight battle line for a massed charge and bring more attacks to bear along a narrow front)

For what it's worth, I would agree that squeezing rules should apply to moving through diagonal half-squares *IF* there are creatures in the adjacent squares and you are trying to move past them through the partial squares.

If there is no one occupying any of those whole squares, I agree with the OP that it's silly to try to enforce squeezing, as those squares are only "partial" because of an arbitrary orientation of the map grid.

I might suggest, though, that it be impossible to END your move in a partial square, as it could lead to some goofiness if a creature moves up next to you, or else say that you can end your turn in a partial square but if you do and someone moves up next to you, you are now squeezing and take the relevant penalties.

You're missing something - the horses are both physical barriers to each other. The horses are squeezing between physical barriers - the 10' meat cubes of size L creatures (other horses).

@ Zurai:

You are correct, in your example there is nothing on both sides of the horses. However there are a couple problems with using that feat description as logic to prove this case.

1) The very purpose of the feat as I read it is to jam-pack a front line battle formation with cavalry riders. Therefore in the intended application of the feat there likely would be another two horses in the 10' squares on either side of those horses and so on and so forth.

2) The feat actually seems to be based on phantom rules. What I mean by that is this: There is no rules section of the game that states you may occupy the same square as a friendly creature but suffer squeezing penalties. There is however a portion of rules that discusses occupying the same square:

Ending Your Movement: You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.

Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space: Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it's not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there's a legal position that's closer.

The same section also says you may move through a square occupied by a friend, but the friend doesn't provide you with cover. There is no mention of moving through a friend's square in this way causing penalties for squeezing through that square. The section goes on to say that you may not, at any time, move through an enemies square unless it is helpless, or you use Overrun or Acrobatics.

The rules for Squeezing are never mentioned in this portion of rules. So aside from your feat description (which seems to be quoting non-existent rules) there don't seem to be any rules that even imply that two creatures occupying the same square suffer squeezing rules. In fact the opposite is suggested: That it is impossible to occupy the same square as another creature (friend or foe) unless one is helpless. I would say that the writer of the feat probably should have instead stated that the feat allows two horsemen to occupy the same square without one being helpless.

If I have missed some rules section in PRD that allows for multiple creatures in the same square please post them, because I saw none.

...

@ All:

To further illustrate my point: Not only do the examples for the squeezing rules depict a creature trying to fit through an opening between two physical barriers smaller than its normal size, but also that rule is found under the Terrain and Obstacles section. With that in mind read the first sentence of Squeezing:

Squeezing: In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up.

For what it's worth, I would agree that squeezing rules should apply to moving through diagonal half-squares *IF* there are creatures in the adjacent squares and you are trying to move past them through the partial squares.

If there is no one occupying any of those whole squares, I agree with the OP that it's silly to try to enforce squeezing, as those squares are only "partial" because of an arbitrary orientation of the map grid.

I might suggest, though, that it be impossible to END your move in a partial square, as it could lead to some goofiness if a creature moves up next to you, or else say that you can end your turn in a partial square but if you do and someone moves up next to you, you are now squeezing and take the relevant penalties.

I would caveat this by saying: If you are trying to move between a wall and a foe through a half square then you take the penalties. However, if you are trying to move between a wall and a friend through a half square you would not; if you can move through your friends same square without incurring penalty I see no reason why moving beside him in a half square (which affords both of you more space than moving through a single square) should cause penalty.

...

Just a thought: Jason Nelson claims to have written that particular section of rules (his title being what it is, with no reason to think he is lying, I am inclined to believe) so he probably knows the intent of those rules better than we.

@ Zurai:
1) The very purpose of the feat as I read it is to jam-pack a front line battle formation with cavalry riders. Therefore in the intended application of the feat there likely would be another two horses in the 10' squares on either side of those horses and so on and so forth.

So you're suggesting that the line of horses stretches all the way across the world? Because otherwise, one of the horses isn't going to have a physical barrier on its flank.

That said, point one was made completely irrelevant by point two and the following arguments, which I see you have not addressed.

Well, part of that is because you DID miss a rule that allows creatures to share spaces. Several of them, actually:

Very Small Creature: A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature can move into or through an occupied square. The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so.

Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures: Very small creatures take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one such creature can fit into a single square. A Tiny creature typically occupies a space only 2-1/2 feet across, so four can fit into a single square. 25 Diminutive creatures or 100 Fine creatures can fit into a single square. Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can't reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent's square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without provoking attacks of opportunity. They also can't flank an enemy.

Zurai:

Very Small Creature: A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature can move into or through an occupied square. The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so.

Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures: Very small creatures take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one such creature can fit into a single square. A Tiny creature typically occupies a space only 2-1/2 feet across, so four can fit into a single square. 25 Diminutive creatures or 100 Fine creatures can fit into a single square. Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can't reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent's square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without provoking attacks of opportunity. They also can't flank an enemy.

EDIT: It also talks about creatures who take up less than one square having to get into another creatures square before attacking it due to a reach 0 feet. Again even when in a larger creatures space and attacking it there is no mention of a squeezing penalty; only that it provokes an AoO entering another creatures square.

There is also this in the section from which I was quoting earlier:

Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller: Any creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories larger than itself.

A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is. Creatures moving through squares occupied by other creatures provoke attacks of opportunity from those creatures.

There is also a section of rules provided for riding horses:

A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat.

The other part is that without the ability to squeeze into the same 10' square, all Massed Charge does is to provide bonuses on combat maneuver checks.

The Massed Charge feat was based, I suppose, on a particular notion of the squeezing rules - and I'd have to look back at the original text I turned over, but the idea would be this - that you could "squeeze" any time you wanted in order to take up less space than normal. Most of the time, there would be no reason to do it, but in some cases, like a tight-packed cavalry formation, there would, and here's why:

True, you can move through friendly squares any time you want without impediment, squeezing or otherwise. HOWEVER, you can't finish your move in friendly squares, and you can't charge through friendly squares.

Therefore, the idea of intentional squeezing was introduced here to make your width be 5' instead of the 10' normal for a horse and rider, because that way:

a. Since you're in a different grid line of squares from the horse next to you, you can charge (since your spaces wouldn't be overlapping); and,

b. You can finish your move slotted in between adjacent horses each with a 5' width.

It's true, there's nothing explicitly in the rules saying that you can intentionally squeeze in order to narrow your profile. By rule, if you had a line of horses, they'd all be 10' cubes, and any other horses would have to be in a row of 10' cubes behind them, or else they'd have to move *through* the front rank of horses and bull rush or overrun any enemies in front of them.

So the accusation of this being a phantom rule--the ability to intentionally squeeze your own space--it's true. I don't think it's specifically disallowed by the rules, and the rules inference I used to develop was based on simple logic:

If one Large can squeeze through a 5' wide hallway with walls on either side, then shouldn't it be able to squeeze through a 5' wide space of any kind? Or shouldn't a pair of Large creatures BOTH be able to squeeze through a pair of 5' wide spaces - that is, two adjacent 5' grid lines?

The penalties for squeezing are pretty hefty, so if you wanted to gimp yourself to make it work, why not, right?

No just cuz it's logical doesn't mean it is in the RAW, but hey, even in 3rd Ed RAW doesn't cover everything, and this is an area where the rules weren't clear cut.

So, the rule intent of the Massed Combat feat (which yes, I did write) is this:

When you are adjacent to other horses & riders using that feat, in essence your horses function as if they are only 5' wide, so you can pack in closely together without worrying about infringing on each others' space for charging, moving, attacking, ending your turn, etc. (And yes, the feat is irrelevant for the horses at the end of the line, cuz they are only bounded by another horse on one side, though they COULD if they wanted)

As for the issue of making someone be "squeezing" because they are moving through diagonal half-squares, I think that's silly. A diamond is only a square turned on its side - the grid squares are only diagonal partial squares because you decided to lay the grid one way rather than the other. When you're operating in a diamond-shaped room, maybe you should draw the room's interior on the battle-mat in line with the room's orientation rather than based on the orientation of a "straight (horizontal or vertical on the map) hallway."

The interpretation that suggests a character moving along a diagonal wall is squeezing is nonsensical on the face of it, and you can tell with this simple test:

If you have a Medium sized character moving down a 5' wide hallway, but the hallway is DIAGONAL (which means that EVERY square he's moving through is actually a partial grid square), then that logic would demand that he be declared to be squeezing through every square walking down the hallway, because EVERY square is a partial square.

That.
Is.
Dumb.