|
*blushes*
I need some help with the following questions. Please be as detailed yet concise as possible. Thanks in advance to all you Pathfinder gurus!
1) My players sometimes sqeeze 2-abreast down 5' halls. They do this sometimes to each get an attack against an opponent. What are the consequences during combat? AC-4? Can a PC take a 5' step forward through a friendly occupied square to co-attack a beast, even though it requires her to sqeeze next to another PC? At the end of her round, is she forced back to her own square or must she continue to occupy the shared one?
2) How would you adjudicate the above scenario the best? Acrobatics check? CMB? Just a move action, and a standard action? Just a 5 foot step?
3) Scenario: A wizard tosses a globe of sonic ka-boomski down a 5' corridor occupied by two humans and a halfling, toward an aspect of Malcanthet within line of sight. What modifier would you provide the ranged touch attack? What negative modifier, of any, according to Pathfinder, would be applied due to the friendly PCs?
I've writen the questions like I am confused. Pathfinder Gurus, please help me understand?
I'm not necessarily a Guru, let alone a Pathfinder Guru, but I will do my best with almost 20 years D&D experience to answer your questions.
EDIT: I put my answers under a spoiler tag so the post wouldn't be ginormous.
1) My players sometimes sqeeze 2-abreast down 5' halls...
There are only a few ways 2 creatures can share the same 5' square. Grapple, Tiny creatures(familiars), Swarm Fighting(feat/ability) and 'Attaching' monsters(Stirges, which I think might be a grapple.).
2) How would you adjudicate the above scenario the best? Acrobatics check? CMB? Just a move action, and a standard action? Just a 5 foot step?
3) Scenario: A wizard tosses a globe of sonic ka-boomski down a 5' corridor occupied by two humans and a halfling, toward an aspect of Malcanthet within line of sight...
My groups have always considered Halflings, Gnomes and other small creatures as being "Down in Front" meaning they do not cause cover penalties to larger (medium+) allies trying to fire past them, as a crouched medium wouldn't.
Medium creatures do cause cover penalties, usually just a static -4 in our current group (I believe) within reason, 2-3 at most. A large/thick crowd would be arguably an impossible shot, or start tacking on the -4 penalties per 2-3 people they are firing through and show them just how silly it really is. Height plays a factor in this, see below...
Depending on the size of the monster and the size of the character firing spells/ranged attacks, it is feasible to fire UP at the creature with no penalties. This is subject to DM(your) judgement though. (Ex: Human Archer fires a bow at an ogre, the Halfling Rogue and the Dwarf Fighter are both in the line of fire, however the ogre is large and is exposed from the waist up.) Again, I believe this is a "common sense house rule".
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
*blushes*
I need some help with the following questions. Please be as detailed yet concise as possible. Thanks in advance to all you Pathfinder gurus!1) My players sometimes sqeeze 2-abreast down 5' halls. They do this sometimes to each get an attack against an opponent. What are the consequences during combat? AC-4? Can a PC take a 5' step forward through a friendly occupied square to co-attack a beast, even though it requires her to sqeeze next to another PC? At the end of her round, is she forced back to her own square or must she continue to occupy the shared one?
2) How would you adjudicate the above scenario the best? Acrobatics check? CMB? Just a move action, and a standard action? Just a 5 foot step?
3) Scenario: A wizard tosses a globe of sonic ka-boomski down a 5' corridor occupied by two humans and a halfling, toward an aspect of Malcanthet within line of sight. What modifier would you provide the ranged touch attack? What negative modifier, of any, according to Pathfinder, would be applied due to the friendly PCs?
I've writen the questions like I am confused. Pathfinder Gurus, please help me understand?
Yeah your Players are trying to pull a fast one.
1) You can't squeeze through any creatures squares. Squeezing only happens when a creature moves through an unoccupied space that is half the size of their normal space. This normally only comes up with Large or Larger creatures but might apply for medium sized creatures in cramped tunnels (kobold warren or sewer pipes). Anything smaller than half your space and you need to make an escape artist check. Squeezing applies a -4 penalty to AC and attacks and each square costs 2 to move through...
2) SO your PC's will have to coordinate their actions to swap spots either by withdrawing or delaying. But they can't get free spring attacks by illegally ending their turn in a friendly occupied square. Remember you can move through an allies space, you just can't stop there.
Example: A Fighter and Rogue are battling a kobold in a 5' wide hallway. The fighter is up front and the rogue is 2 squares behind the fighter. The fighter can full attack and take a 5' step back allowing the rogue to move through him to stand in front of the kobold and attack. Now next round the fighter has to delay until after the rogue goes. The rogue can either attack again and try to tumble away using acrobatics or even tumble through the kobold to get a flank (much harder) or just withdraw. The Fighter can then 5'step up and full attack. Repeat.
3) Well the aspect has Cover (+4 to AC) at the very least. If your allies are in melee with the aspect then you have a -4 to hit unless you have precise shot.
We're very lax about rules in my tabletop group, and I personally do allow them to move around like that when out of combat (you could easily fit 4 standing adults in a five foot by five foot space).
My ruling once combat began is that they're all going to be helplessly huddled together with no room to swing a sword, if they want to act they need to "disband" into adjacent squares first. I certainly wouldnt give both an attack - I'd give neither of them an attack in fact (on the grounds that they're getting in one another's way).
To me, it seems silly to stick to the rules in non-tactical situations if doing so means that nobody can come within five feet of a friend for longer than 6 seconds (where do little demi-humans come from?) In a tactical situation, it's still a little silly (I can walk through your square, but can't stop in it? How does that work?) however so is acting in turns one after the other - some things just make the bookkeeping easier.
That's all not according to the letter of the rules, of course, but I think the rules are just there to help tell a story. Making sense is more important than complying with the rules, imo.
I agree with Steve, making sense is a huge part of the tactics.
I had forgotten to mention Precise Shot, Primeover covered it well.
I could see allowing characters to fight in the same square, effectively squeezing into the same space. Enforce the squeezing limitations on them, though. -4 to attack and defense is a big deal. Besides, they could always do the dance and just swap spaces to get their attacks in.
I think I've seen a feat that allows characters to share spaces in combat, but if memory serves, it's restricted to small characters.
I would allow it, though the words of the rules say it's not allowed. But real people could do that, so I allow Pcs to do so as well.
When squeezing movement speed is halved, so you can't make 5-foot-steps. So if you move, you only have one standard attack left.
I could see allowing characters to fight in the same square, effectively squeezing into the same space. Enforce the squeezing limitations on them, though. -4 to attack and defense is a big deal. Besides, they could always do the dance and just swap spaces to get their attacks in.
I'd have to say that whether it is a big deal or not depends on the game. Obviously it was disruptive enough to the OPs game that he/she posted about it. And in a game where money/magic is wide spread -4 really isn't all that much of a difference (touch attacks in particular). I'd also like to point out PFRPG has gotten rid of one of the only "valid" ways to be sharing a spot - grappling (the other major one being that you can move into an opponents space if it was 2 sizes larger than you unless it was removed in PFRPG, allowing for AoO of course). I'd imagine there was a reason lol. The whole point of the "dance" is to not allow for full round actions (full attacks/TWF/etc.) when doing something like this. So with the exception of being helpless I'd say no sharing of spaces in combat and follow the rules but YMMV. As an aside, in our games if you are sharing a spot with a helpless/dead body or moving through a spot with one in it, it counts as rough terrain as well. Basically no 5' steps through and low balance checks (DC in the book) which are probably only going to be missed by someone with no ranks and heavy armor penalties that rolls low when fighting/moving in one.
I think I've seen a feat that allows characters to share spaces in combat, but if memory serves, it's restricted to small characters.
That was the swarm fighting feat mentioned earlier and there were other feats for small (or smaller) as well that provided bonuses to AC and caused the target to be flatfooted when sharing a space with a larger creature.
|
|
... But real people could do that, so I allow Pcs to do so as well.
Everyone has been helpful so far, and I easpecially paused with Neithan's comment (above). Are there any thoughts on why is it that the GM/DM can seeming make the whole of the world "make sense", yet, when it comes to combat - there are prohibitions...
We don't tell GM's that imagination is the limit, but PCs are prohibited from being diplomatic to more than 1 person at a time, nor do we tell the PCs that Perception checks are limited to 3 times per day for "mechanical" reasons... etc....
I'm now, just reflecting, and would like input on - if a GM "allows" this type of movement, based on 'it could happen contextually' or whatever, then, what is the way most consistent with Pathfinder to do so? (*provides can-opener to provoke open minds*) Really... if you want to do this - how would you do it well? i.e. use Acrobatics? Use CMB? Use a feat? Thoughts?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
If I were to allow two medium creatures to share a space (which I personally wouldn't just to KISS) I would probably want them to have trained to do so. Fighting in close quaters isn't easy and requires a good amount of teamwork.
So I would use one of these mechanics (from 3.5 sources)
1) a feat like Swarmfighting, Phalanx Fighting, or Shield Wall (obviously requiring use of shields)
2) make it a skill trick based off Escape Artist or Athletics, which of course makes it a trick that you can pull off 1/encounter (barring special feats or class abilities that let you use skill tricks more often... se Complete Scoundrel)
3) Make it a Teamwork benefit (DMG 2 and PHB 2) require the team leader to have X number of ranks in Escape Artist and the team members to have 1 rank. It takes two weeks of training to gain the benefit and one week every few months to freshen up.
--Between a Vrock and a hard place!
... But real people could do that, so I allow Pcs to do so as well.
Everyone has been helpful so far, and I easpecially paused with Neithan's comment (above). Are there any thoughts on why is it that the GM/DM can seeming make the whole of the world "make sense", yet, when it comes to combat - there are prohibitions...
I completely understand where you are coming from but you have to realize this isn't real life we are dealing with. It is a set of guidelines on which certain assumptions are understood, based on all that other guidelines were created to balance things out. It is kinda like a house of cards in that respect, pull a few of the base cards out and things come tumbling down/aren't balanced anymore. The rules are meant to give a reasonable facsimile of real actions, they are also supposed to streamline and simplify said actions so that they can be resolved in a quick period of time. Because of that some "logical" or "common sense" concessions are made for the greater good of the game.
We don't tell GM's that imagination is the limit, but PCs are prohibited from being diplomatic to more than 1 person at a time, nor do we tell the PCs that Perception checks are limited to 3 times per day for "mechanical" reasons... etc....
Actually that isn't true, the DM is still bound by the same base rules that the PC's are limited to. The DM just has a great deal more on his or her plate due to the amount of roles he/she must portray or deal with.
I'm now, just reflecting, and would like input on - if a GM "allows" this type of movement, based on 'it could happen contextually' or whatever, then, what is the way most consistent with Pathfinder to do so? (*provides can-opener to provoke open minds*) Really... if you want to do this - how would you do it well? i.e. use Acrobatics? Use CMB? Use a feat? Thoughts?
I would like to put out a cautionary note (ok maybe more then one lol), not to say I'm telling you not to do something. It is your game after all, feel free to run it as you want, there are just somethings I think you should take into consideration when making rules changes. First, make sure everyone is aware you aren't playing RAW and that they are aware of the what the RAW rules state, there isn't much more of a frustration than having a new player either join your group or who leaves your group just to find out the "world isn't the same". It is down right annoying to have the carpet yanked out from beneath you in that respect.
Two, realize that if you are going to house rule everything thing that "doesn't make sense", it will probably become a part time job lol. Do a search on Google (or what ever your favorite search engine is) for D&D (and its myriad of spellings and editions) and house rules. You will find at some point practically all the rules "done over" to make sense. Some of the pages are just down right mind bogglingly filled with changes. And the changes are in one DM's perspective, now take that and play in two or three groups with all of their own house rules, it can be overwhelming.Lastly, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It might be fine in your opinion to allow for squeezing and such in this particular case but chances are there are things that get mucked up by changing it. Also you need to make sure it happens across the board. The PC's might enjoy it right now, but what about in the future when you are fighting off large creatures who are now capable of sharing spaces? When the party fighter gets 3-shot'ed they won't think it is so great, especially when if you were using RAW only one of the large creatures would have been able to attack twice (due to a tunnel, cover, etc.) and the fighter would have been able to survive it.
I mean honestly I don't need your can opener, there are probably several ways to allow this particular scenario legally, you just have to do the leg work. Part of the fun of this game (for me anyways) is getting things like this to work legally within the boundaries of the rules. Swarm fighting has already been mentioned several times, if the PC's want to make use of this tactic, enforce the rules and make them reroll the characters so they are small and can take that feat. It is pretty simple and is already implemented in the game. It is also a pretty cool feat and that it is limited to small characters allows them to be "better" than the big folk in some way when normally they are restricted to smaller damage dice, lower carrying capacities, etc (basically penalties for being small which make them inferior for many combat purposes).
Like Primemover said - KISS. So I guess my answer is, play a small character and take swarm fighting. It is simple and uncomplicated and doesn't change the rules in such way there might be a ripple effect through the game. And it is part of the rule set. My big problem is anyone can make a line of reasoning "make sense" and following that, anything is possible in the game. I think there are limitations for a reason and that is why I'd also suggest not allowing it. If everyone has access to everything where is the fun in that?
|
|
First, I thank you and all others. I will be printing this thread and sharing it as a discussion point for my group. I will be disallowing that type of sqeeze-play combat in general in the future, except for the party's halfling, or future diminutive, and only with proper skill, training, or feat, etc.
Second, I still challenge it conceptually because I seem to recall that Gygax and Arneson originally used 3 foot cooridors, not the 5 foot sections we've been familiar with in the past three editions. The logic here is that there may be wise persons who can consider how to make Third edition work seemlessly with "Squeeze fighting" or shared space maneuvers, etc., or whatever.... I do think this is still an area of opportunity..., but Skylancer's reasoning is well stated and sufficient for me for now.
I think the reasoning/blame (depending on if you look at it as a good/bad thing) resides partly with miniature market and accessories for games that include them in play, rather than a fault in the rules when it comes to the 5' square. As the gaming market grew and manufacturers started to get into it, a certain level of standardization is bound to happen (aka Why buy this mat and miniatures set based on 3' squares when I could buy this 5' set that will work for three times as many games?). In a purist sense of things, no it isn't the same, in a functionality or marketing sense it is probably simpler and better. There are a number of reasons they decided on that "metric(?)" I'm sure, things of that sort usually aren't arbitrary. I mean do you ever stop to think about why 90%+ of your consumer electronics are a set width across +/-? Most people don't but there is a reason.
I guess my point is while some could make rules for a 3' game conversion, are there enough reasons they would want to? Any thing is possible, there are a ton of different views on games and if you were really interested my guess would be you could find something on the internet if that person was either kind enough/interested enough an making it well known. My gut feeling is that it would definitely be a niche market though, small enough that it isn't worth investing in unless there was other incentive (aka personal use). There is always the option to design them yourself if you really really want them, at worst it will give you a more in depth insight to game design, which might make the exercise worth it to you on that merit alone.
|
This seems to be settled to the OP's satisfaction, but I still wanted to chime in with a couple of thoughts.
Don't think of the space a creature occupies on the battlemat as the actual space it fills. (It's because some people think this way that we had so much freakin' size creep in the D&D minis line as the sets went on.)
Instead, think of that space as (1) the space the creature controls on the battlemat, and (2) the space the creature needs to function effectively in combat.
Once you begin to think it these terms, spacing in the game makes fine sense. Some people, for instance, think it's absurd that a warhorse occupies a 10x10 area. If you're only thinking in actual space, they're right that it's absurd. But as anyone who's ever been around an unruly horse knows, the area it actually controls -- the area you don't really want to be in, just in case the horse sidesteps or wheels -- is much larger than the horse itself ... large enough that 10x10 is far from an unreasonable approximation, especially for a horse of 18 hands or more.
If there's no need in the game to think in terms of "control" or "function," don't. Let people and creatures occupy the spaces that make sense to you. There's no reason to switch to game mechanics until there's a reason to switch to game mechanics. Just make sure that your players know that even if you let them explore a corridor side by side, when as encounter happens and the need for control and combat function comes into play, one or the other of the explorers is going to get pushed out of the way (into a legal space), and they should be aware of that and be prepared for it.
(As an aside, I kinda doubt two normal humans, especially in armor, can move normally down a five-foot corridor. I know I couldn't possibly do it with another adult male. It's true that I'm a very big guy -- 6'5" and 300+ pounds -- but on the other hand I don't wear armor or carry 100 pounds of gear.)
-- Jeff
I'm a six foot two male with a solid skeletal structure (250 lbs, and I'm decently fit and strong, just a little padding). I just measured myself against the relatively narrow bathroom door in my house (built in 1910), and to walk through it straight, my arms are actually pushed against my side. The door is 2' 2" wide. With my arms at rest, but not pushing against my side, I measure 2'7" wide. This is also with a T-Shirt on.
Now, If I were walking down a 5' hallway, with my theoretical twin next to me, with at least one of us wearing full plate, we would be definitely rubbing arms together at all times, definitively restricting movement. If we replace my theoretical twin with my friend Evan, it becomes worse, as Evan is barrel chested, is 6'6, 360 pounds, and his chest is 19" deep. His body width clears 3', as proven by the fact he has to angle his torso to get through my front door.
Back in the hallway, scabbards would be potentially tangling legs (if you have worn Rennaisance Garb you know what I'm talking about), and the ability to swing would be restricted to overhead chops and stabs, two of the most predictable (albeit powerful) attacks. Sidestepping (one of the most basic and instinctual types of evading attacks) is effictively impossible.
-4 to attack, -4 to AC, and half movement make perfect sense. I would allow my PCs to do so, but they will take all the penalties for squeezing. This makes my job simple, as I use a pre-existing mechanic, but also allows them to make the attempt, rather than me arbitrarily denying it.
Also, side note: restricted speed does not prevent a 5' step, unless your speed is restricted to 5'. Difficult terrain prevents a 5' step, and restricts speed, but that is a property of difficult terrain (and darkness). A slowed creature can still take a 5' step.
BB out.
I'm a six foot two male with a solid skeletal structure (250 lbs, and I'm decently fit and strong, just a little padding). I just measured myself against the relatively narrow bathroom door in my house (built in 1910), and to walk through it straight, my arms are actually pushed against my side. The door is 2' 2" wide. With my arms at rest, but not pushing against my side, I measure 2'7" wide. This is also with a T-Shirt on.
Now, If I were walking down a 5' hallway, with my theoretical twin next to me, with at least one of us wearing full plate, we would be definitely rubbing arms together at all times, definitively restricting movement. If we replace my theoretical twin with my friend Evan, it becomes worse, as Evan is barrel chested, is 6'6, 360 pounds, and his chest is 19" deep. His body width clears 3', as proven by the fact he has to angle his torso to get through my front door.
Back in the hallway, scabbards would be potentially tangling legs (if you have worn Rennaisance Garb you know what I'm talking about), and the ability to swing would be restricted to overhead chops and stabs, two of the most predictable (albeit powerful) attacks. Sidestepping (one of the most basic and instinctual types of evading attacks) is effictively impossible.
-4 to attack, -4 to AC, and half movement make perfect sense. I would allow my PCs to do so, but they will take all the penalties for squeezing. This makes my job simple, as I use a pre-existing mechanic, but also allows them to make the attempt, rather than me arbitrarily denying it.
Also, side note: restricted speed does not prevent a 5' step, unless your speed is restricted to 5'. Difficult terrain prevents a 5' step, and restricts speed, but that is a property of difficult terrain (and darkness). A slowed creature can still take a 5' step.
BB out.
Not nearly restrictive enough for what you described given the gist of the rules. Now take into account that you may be striking at the same time as your friend, effectively blocking each other or worse opening each other up by tangling each others weapons. Using a mechanic meant for strictly movement isn't the same as using that same mechanic in combat and doesn't count as a "pre-existing" mechanic.
Not nearly restrictive enough for what you described given the gist of the rules. Now take into account that you may be striking at the same time as your friend, effectively blocking each other or worse opening each other up by tangling each others weapons. Using a mechanic meant for strictly movement isn't the same as using that same mechanic in combat and doesn't count as a "pre-existing" mechanic.
Huh? I'm somewhat confused by your post. Squeezing is a mechanic meant for combat, as it directly affects aspects of combat (AC and Attack rolls). Disable Device is a mechanic that could be said to not be meant for combat, as it has no aspects of it that interface with combat mechanics besides the basic concentration check to do it while threatened. Could I use disable device to undo the straps on the fighter's full plate? Or remove a key part of the clockwork construct attacking my party? Maybe, but I would need to develop a mechanic for such an attempt, which could be simple, or quite complex.
-4 is terribly restrictive. It is double the standard -2 for poor circumstances. Its the same penalty an archer without Precise Shot takes to make a shot that doesn't risk putting an arrow in the back of his friends head. (The validity of those mechanics are being argued in another thread, so lets leave them out of this one, but you see the idea I'm putting out here.)
These penalties are the same as if your medium creature were in a 2.5 foot passage. In such a passage, you would be even more restricted than in the squeezing duo example, because your freind, while certainly capable of getting in your way, is also capable of getting out of it, leaning back if you want to swing, intercepting attacks coming at you. In the passage, you have no ally, just hard walls preventing your ability to attack and defend yourself.
In the abstract combat engine of D&D, I see the two situations as being equally detrimental on enough levels that I find it simpler, easier to adjucate (and simpler for my players to understand), and more cohesive to the game to use the preexisting mechanic of squeezing, rather than devise and implement a new mechanic. Am I incapable of devising such a mechanic? No, but I find it simply not efficient to do so in this situation.
Out of tactical combat, I don't care if my players want to squeeze two, or a few, characters into a space too small for them. Ever get 10 people on an elevator?
But when tactical combat starts, the first thing I make them do is get out of each other's squares.
Tactical combat doesn't have to be conducted in squares, but the game is written so that it does, so that each combatant has a certain space they occupy, and many of the rules are written to simplify and clarify what goes on in these squares and the squares around them, so I enforce those rules when combat begins.
Sometimes, when I say roll initiative, I may split the characters into squares right then.
Example: Bob is listening at the door and Fred is picking the lock on the same door, so they're in the same 5' space when Karl the Kobold opens the door from the other side and attacks. Easy enough. The door handle/lock is on the left, so Fred goes to the left of the door, while Bob was listening in roughly the center of the door, so he remains in front of it. Obviously, Karl the Kobold is most likely to attack Bob since Bob gets no cover from the doorframe.
Other times, there is no way to split them into squares. In this case, my housrule states that remaining in the same square means both characters interfere with each other, causing -2 to hit and -2 AC, as well as -2 to any movement oriented skill checks or REF saves, per person in the space (so at least -4 if there are two in the space, -6 if there are three, etc.).
Whoever wins initiative can move out of the square with no penalties (other than any normal penalties for movement, such as AoO, etc., as per RAW), but while they're in the same square it's considered rough terrain, so no running or charging. Whichever of the two (or more) characters lost the initiative is forced to only take partial actions unless the character(s) with faster initiatives get out of their square. I do this to represent that if the faster guy(s) go first and stay there, jumping and moving and attacking, the first one gets only a little interference since the slower guy(s) is/are not doing anything yet, but then the slower guy(s) are really hindered by their faster friend(s) activities in their space).
Example: Fred and Bob again, same door, but now it's at the end of a 5' wide corridor, and Dave the Dwarf and Mark the Mage are crowded right behind them. Karl the Kobold opens the door, but there are no spaces to split up Fred and Bob. They have no choice but to fight on and take the penalties, or else whichever one wins initiative could Withdraw back behind Mark the Mage to make room for the other one to fight normally.
Yep, those are house rules, because the RAW doesn't allow for crowding into spaces like that. By RAW, you should enforce that everyone is in their own space, all the time.
|
We're very lax about rules in my tabletop group, and I personally do allow them to move around like that when out of combat (you could easily fit 4 standing adults in a five foot by five foot space).
My ruling once combat began is that they're all going to be helplessly huddled together with no room to swing a sword, if they want to act they need to "disband" into adjacent squares first. I certainly wouldnt give both an attack - I'd give neither of them an attack in fact (on the grounds that they're getting in one another's way).
To me, it seems silly to stick to the rules in non-tactical situations if doing so means that nobody can come within five feet of a friend for longer than 6 seconds (where do little demi-humans come from?) In a tactical situation, it's still a little silly (I can walk through your square, but can't stop in it? How does that work?) however so is acting in turns one after the other - some things just make the bookkeeping easier.
That's all not according to the letter of the rules, of course, but I think the rules are just there to help tell a story. Making sense is more important than complying with the rules, imo.
I would allow them to squeeze into the same square, only they wouldn't have any room to move, thus loss of Dex, unable to effectively threaten a other squares, etc...it's abstract squares, but they are purposely squeezing, so let them, but bring down the hammer!
Huh? I'm somewhat confused by your post. Squeezing is a mechanic meant for combat, as it directly affects aspects of combat (AC and Attack rolls).
Simply put as you cannot share a square in combat anyways, the rules written (and that you are attempting to reason with) don't cover your point. What the rules do say is for that brief second or two while you are quickly passing through a square already occupied you get these modifiers. Stopping to chat, or swing a weapon or do the defensive "dance" is a completely different story in that respect.
As for -4 being restrictive, you are correct, it is - But a good ability score can completely negate that penalty (at 1st level even). "Effictively impossible" does not equal "restrictive". If you want an established rule for something that is effectively impossible, look at sniping in the hide in shadows/stealth skill for a relative and realistic penalty.
If you want some rules to play with to determine what it would be like, look at grapple. In essence the two of you are "grappling" with each other while fighting someone else. Pushing and pulling each other all the while attempting to get shots in at the opponent, actually it would probably be more like grappling and squeezing at the same time looking at the rules. Not only do you have to worry about the defenses of your opponent, you need to worry about if you team mate is going to get in the way too. Take all the modifiers from both conditions and pile them on, that would probably be more realistic.
|
I have had players do this, I though it was possible. I gave them a -4 to attack, and no penalty on AC.(I figure they would get -4, but the other person gives them cover to offset it). Also if they missed thier opponent by 4, they hit the person they are sharing a square with. If an enemy's attack missed one of the pcs sharing the square by 4 or less then they hit the other person sharing the square.(as per cover rules) It was great.
Never try to fight in the same square that your friend is in, you are just looking for trouble.
I'm generally against flat-out denying players from trying what they want to do. They face logical consequences, but I seldom shoot them down entirely. The -4 penalties to attacks and AC are substantial disadvantages; I also penalize saves and prohibit allies from moving through their square.
Your players have a reason for doing this. In all likelihood, it boils down to everyone wanting to help fight in the combat, even if such aid isn't very efficient.
To counter some earlier examples, Roman soldiers trained to fight two feet apart, locking their shields against each other. The warriors on Saxon shield walls stood no more than 30 inches apart. Fighters on SCA shield walls are often about two feet apart. It's really not that tough to fight in confined areas.
My relaxed approach has produced a few absurdities: I once had a druid order several summoned hippogriffs to grapple a foe, only to have each one fail and pile up in the squares before it, a living barricade of flailing claws and snapping beaks.