| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has happened more times than I can count in PFS. So, the front-liner takes a couple power attacks from the big beastie, and falls to -3 hit points, becoming prone and helpless. Nobody's particularly worried, because there's a great healer cleric nearby, but the rogue steps into his square to engage the monster in melee because hell, it's a five-foot-wide corridor and Paizo seems to think those are just awesome these days.
On the next initiative, the cleric channels energy. Suddenly... the two medium-sized characters are sharing the same square. What happens then? We usually sort of glance around the table in confusion, and someone suggests "Ummm I guess Jeff gets 'bumped' out to here?" and slides his mini over five feet. Of course... sometimes there's no free space within five feet, and if Jeff was to be 'bumped,' he'd have to travel about fifteen feet.
The same situation arises when someone tries to maneuver through allies' squares to use Acrobatics to get through a monster's squares. Inevitably, they fail the Acrobatics check, which makes them take an AoO... and then they have to stop moving. But... the nearest open space is fifteen feet behind them, because of the mob of players/animal companions filling every square between the archers and the monster. What happens here?
|
Technically, the unconscious character is still alive, so you could argue that the front liner could not move into his square in the first place.
However, I am not one of those GMs. If you can occupy the square of a non-moving dead body, then you could do the same with an unconscious creature. My ruling would be that when the unconscious character becomes conscious (and becomes animated), the front liner occupying his square is shunted out of the square in a random direction.
As for not having a square to be shunted to, you may actually have to use squeezing rules here (which I do not like using for anything other than moving through tight spaces) and then when a space opens up, immediately shunt an adjacent creature (chosen randomly again).
I doubt you are going to get a reply on this for a FAQ. There will always be situations that pop up in games that the rules do not explicitly cover. That is what GM adjudication is for...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to have it pretty much. The actual rule is
"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."
That of course deals exactly with the Acrobatics check. The unconscious character is a bit more complex, since the rule seems to 'check' at the end of a persons move, not necessarily any other time. I think probably the best solution is to do what you have talked about, and have the illegal space rules be triggered anytime anything would cause an illegal positioning to occur.
However, one could probably argue that until either the fighter or the rogue take their turn (and would either move or end their turn in an illegal space) they are good. This also has some verisimilitude, since our fighter, while no longer unconscious is still prone, hasn't moved, and so really isn't any more of an obstacle than he was when unconscious.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, the unconscious character is still alive, so you could argue that the front liner could not move into his square in the first place.
Actually, this is incorrect.
"You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless."
Unconscious PCs are helpless, so the initial move is legal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, the unconscious character is still alive, so you could argue that the front liner could not move into his square in the first place.
This is not correct, just to keep this on the OP's questions:
You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
|
|
Technically, the unconscious character is still alive, so you could argue that the front liner could not move into his square in the first place.Actually, this is incorrect.
"You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless."
Unconscious PCs are helpless, so the initial move is legal.
I stand corrected...I've always allowed it in my game (usually as difficult terrain), so I guess I was right to. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You ever see the movie The Fly? That's pretty much what happens.
I suppse on the fly, I would rule that the prone character couldn't stand up while the square is occupied. However, it really depends on the specifics of the situation. Maybe the prone character crawls out of the square and stands up. Maybe he stands up and 5-ft steps out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the first question, the rogue enters the helpless ally's square just fine, but then the ally is made no-longer helpless. There is NO rule about beginning your turn in an ally's square, but there is a rule about not ending your turn there, so the fighter, on his turn, can do whatever he wants as long as he ends his turn in a legal space.
This can get a little tricky:
- He can stand up (which provokes), then move (but not withdraw since withdrawing must be his ONLY action) which provokes again. That can be suicidal since he is very close to zero HP.
- He can crawl but only 5' as a full-round and per the OP's situation, there is no vacant square so this probably won't be applicable.
- He could attack the nearest monster, kill it, then move into the square, but it's difficult to stand up, attack, and move all in the same round - it can be done, he can even attack from prone to try to avoid the AoO for standing up: one attack, one move action to stand, then a 5'Step to enter the empty square. If the attack misses or fails to kill the enemy, then this becomes impossible.
- He could delay until the rogue's turn, then the rogue might kill the monster (leaving a vacant square near the prone fighter), or the rogue might withdraw or even attack then move (leaving the fighter's square empty).
Whatever they choose, I require the option to be CERTAIN to work. I won't allow the fighter to say "I attack from prone, hoping I kill the monster, so I could stand and then 5'Step into its space" because that attack might miss or fail to kill it, after which the fighter would be FORCED to end his turn in the rogue's square which is a rules violation. Even reversing the order can fail (standing, then missing the monster, leaves the fighter with no more actions and no empty space for a 5'Step). So I disallow those options.
I definitely DO NOT bump the fighter 10 or 20 feet down the hall behind all the PCs - no magical meta-teleports just to satisfy the rule.
Finally, I allow one more (not RAW) interpretation at my table - the fighter can choose to remain (nearly) helpless - no attacks, no movement, not even drinking a potion. Helpless (nearly). By being deliberately helpless, the original rule is not violated - the rogue is in the square of a helpless ally. I'm even nice enough to allow this to be a modified version of helpless that only applies the Prone condition (AC penalty, cannot be killed with Coup de Grace). Because I'm a nice tarrasque...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a rule about ending your turn or your movement? If it's movement, the fighter can just attack away while prone, and if he tries to move, gets bumped to the nearest open space.
To the second question about acrobatics, this is weird metagamey thing that the rules cause it to be weird and there is no easy way out of it.
A failed Acrobatics attempt to move through an enemy's square means you MUST end that move action in the nearest space from which you tried to enter the enemy's square. If that square is occupied, you cannot end your TURN there but you can end your move action there, assuming you have more actions this turn - you MUST then use your remaining actions to get to a valid square (which probably provokes).
But if your failed Acrobatics check leaves you in an occupied square with no remaining actions, the rule says you return to the nearest empty space. This creates a paradox that you CANNOT legally move there on your own (you're out of actions) but the game mechanics just magically ports you there for no other reason than, well, heck, it's the rule.
Nevertheless, if we're playing by the rules, that's what happens. I usually describe it as a sit-com like situation: "You artfully duck and weave and cartwheel down the corridor, but you run face first into the troll's massive armored hide, bouncing back, slightly dazed, as you wobble back to this empty space here to clear your head from all the chirping birds. The troll laughs at the funny clown as he batters you with his attack of opportunity".
|
You can't END your movement in an illegal space - but you can begin your turn there. Both the rogue and fighter are fine until the first of their turns comes up, then that character needs to get out of that square through any legal means necessary. If the prone fighter's initiative is first he'll need to get to the back of the line.
The one caveat I would add to this is that I would also allow the prone fighter to skip all actions and "play dead" so as not to be forced to provoke an AoO.
Of course, the fighter's really going to want to succeed at that Bluff check...
|
To the first question, the rogue enters the helpless ally's square just fine, but then the ally is made no-longer helpless. There is NO rule about beginning your turn in an ally's square, but there is a rule about not ending your turn there, so the fighter, on his turn, can do whatever he wants as long as he ends his turn in a legal space.
This can get a little tricky:
- He can stand up (which provokes), then move (but not withdraw since withdrawing must be his ONLY action) which provokes again. That can be suicidal since he is very close to zero HP.
- He can crawl but only 5' as a full-round and per the OP's situation, there is no vacant square so this probably won't be applicable.
- He could attack the nearest monster, kill it, then move into the square, but it's difficult to stand up, attack, and move all in the same round - it can be done, he can even attack from prone to try to avoid the AoO for standing up: one attack, one move action to stand, then a 5'Step to enter the empty square. If the attack misses or fails to kill the enemy, then this becomes impossible.
- He could delay until the rogue's turn, then the rogue might kill the monster (leaving a vacant square near the prone fighter), or the rogue might withdraw or even attack then move (leaving the fighter's square empty).
Whatever they choose, I require the option to be CERTAIN to work. I won't allow the fighter to say "I attack from prone, hoping I kill the monster, so I could stand and then 5'Step into its space" because that attack might miss or fail to kill it, after which the fighter would be FORCED to end his turn in the rogue's square which is a rules violation. Even reversing the order can fail (standing, then missing the monster, leaves the fighter with no more actions and no empty space for a 5'Step). So I disallow those options.
I definitely DO NOT bump the fighter 10 or 20 feet down the hall behind all the PCs - no magical meta-teleports just to satisfy the rule.
Finally, I allow one more...
As far as I can tell your last "CERTAIN" example works anyways. The fighter is only required to not end his move (the wording says move, not turn) in an illegal position. If he only attacks, he's not made any movement and can still occupy the space with the rogue. Now that they're both active and in the same square, whether or not you want to do something like applying squeezing penalties is a completely different question.
Though crawling also provokes unless you take a feat to allow you to do so without provoking. So really it's not that much of an issue because it will resolve itself when the fighter takes an AOO on his turn while prone and squeezing and will soon be unconscious again.
Technically the rule is ending your movement, not ending your turn, so by a strictest reading, if neither move they can exist superimposed indefinitely. I can't imagine anyone running it that way though.
DM_Blake's rules are pretty good, but they are houserules, and that should be clarified in a rule forum post.
Like I said originally, one can view the 'ends movement' as being stated as the most likely time this problem would occur, but extrapolate it to a general rule for any time illegal positioning occurs (so upon removal of helpless condition the person gets 'bumped') or that it takes place only during an offending creatures turn, with the 'bump' happening after movement (and/or after failing to move.)
Is there a rule about ending your turn or your movement? If it's movement, the fighter can just attack away while prone, and if he tries to move, gets bumped to the nearest open space.
Technically, that's a fuzzy point. The rule says "movement" but if you can make two moves in a turn, does it apply to each separate "movement" action or only to the end of all your "movement" for the turn?
If it applies to each movement separately, you get a weird corner case:
You might want to move 60' in a straight line, perfectly legal for a character who has 30' speed to do this in a single round. Maybe you have 10 allies, standing here:
Yaaaaa.aaaaaD
(Y = You, a = ally, . = empty space, D = Destination)
You can legally move past all 10 allies my first moving 30' to the empty space, then moving another 30' to the destination.
But then this happens:
Y.....a.....D
Nope, now you cannot move to the desitination space. Even though you could previously pass TEN allies and now there is only ONE ally, that ally is standing 30' away and you cannot end your first movement there, so you must stop short.
That's silly.
I prefer to interpret the rule in the way that doesn't result in silly paradoxes, so for me, the rule that you cannot end your "movement" in an occupied space only applies to your final movement for your turn.
Could the Fighter not choose to stay prone?
DM_Blake's rules are pretty good, but they are houserules, and that should be clarified in a rule forum post.
I disagree.
All by RAW except the final bit about being deliberately helpless which I specifically called out as not being RAW (ergo being a house rule).
Could the Fighter not choose to stay prone?
By RAW, prone is NOT the same as helpless.
If you go down this road, you could have several prone fighters in that square, each full-attacking from prone. Sure, they get a -4 penalty on the attacks, but that's a small price to pay to crowd a bunch of healthy, active combatants into a single space to potentially get dozens of attacks per round (if you have enough prone fighters).
Fortunately, RAW is pretty clear that the ally must be helpless for you to end your movement there.
|
|
DM_Blake's rules are pretty good, but they are houserules, and that should be clarified in a rule forum post.
I disagree.
All by RAW except the final bit about being deliberately helpless which I specifically called out as not being RAW (ergo being a house rule).
The paragraph directly after your bullet points is also a house rule.
"Whatever they choose, I require the option to be CERTAIN to work. I won't allow the fighter to say "I attack from prone, hoping I kill the monster, so I could stand and then 5'Step into its space" because that attack might miss or fail to kill it, after which the fighter would be FORCED to end his turn in the rogue's square which is a rules violation. Even reversing the order can fail (standing, then missing the monster, leaves the fighter with no more actions and no empty space for a 5'Step). So I disallow those options."
DM_Blake's rules are pretty good, but they are houserules, and that should be clarified in a rule forum post.
I disagree.
All by RAW except the final bit about being deliberately helpless which I specifically called out as not being RAW (ergo being a house rule).
The paragraph directly after your bullet points is also a house rule.
"Whatever they choose, I require the option to be CERTAIN to work. I won't allow the fighter to say "I attack from prone, hoping I kill the monster, so I could stand and then 5'Step into its space" because that attack might miss or fail to kill it, after which the fighter would be FORCED to end his turn in the rogue's square which is a rules violation. Even reversing the order can fail (standing, then missing the monster, leaves the fighter with no more actions and no empty space for a 5'Step). So I disallow those options."
How is that a house rule?
I require that because if they choose an option that doesn't work, then THEY broke the RAW.
I do not allow the helpless->healed->prone fighter to say "I will hope to kill the monster so I can move there" because if he fails, he is now in a rules paradox. He MUST move but he CANNOT move. Illegal.
So my requirement is how I FORCE the downed PC to FOLLOW the RAW.
A more fun alternative, also RAW (but only through squirrely rules-lawyering) is this one:
If the prone character takes actions that prevent him from moving, he forces himself to regain the helpless condition at the end of his turn. For example, if the fighter attacks the monster, planning to kill it then move into its square, but fails to kill it and so he cannot move, he becomes helpless again.
Justification: The rogue ended his turn in the square of a helpless ally. The rogue broke no rules. The fighter was healed and could have taken actions to get out of that square but chose not to. The RAW states that they cannot occupy the same square unless one of them is helpless. The fighter was the one who was helpless, the fighter is the one who broke the RAW, and the fighter is the one who is less mobile (prone with an ally standing over him) so he's the one who must be helpless to restore the rules paradox.
Not exactly RAW, but it's one interpretation that comes pretty close and prevents two active characters from sharing the space.
I prefer my solutions in the previous post which were all RAW except the one that I said wasn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a house-rule, but I simply declare the fighter to be "squeezing". Squeezing doesn't let a character end his movement in an occupied square, but that's not what happened here. Until the fighter or the rogue exits the square, the fighter will take squeezing penalties (usually a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC). Note that the -4 to AC stacks with the -4 for being prone.
Personally If I had a say, I would modify the rules so that you can have two entities in the same space. It just causes major penalties.
I think someone mentioned squeezing in tight spaces rules? Those might work well.
As for society rules, it sounds like a complicated situation. Hopefully some solution can be found.
But I'm not a memployee of Paizo, so house rule I shall for my home games. :)
Do the rules actually say you're squeezing while sharing a space, or do they forbid you from sharing a space at the end of the move?
There is no issue while the fighter remains prone. If he attempts to get up wile the rogue is still standing in his space, squeezing rules apply. And of course, he will provoke from any who threathen his space, with a +4 to be hit.
Actually there is.
The Rogue could NOT end his turn there if the fighter were merely prone. The fighter was helpless (unconscious) which is the only way the rogue could end his turn there.
Now the fighter isn't helpless, but the rogue's turn is already ended, so no rules are broken.
Remaining prone is not even a factor in the discussion because there are ZERO cases of any rule where sharing space is or is not allowed due to prone - only helpless.
But if the fighter remains there, well, technically he isn't breaking the rules because the rule specifically says he cannot end his "movement" there, but he's not moving, so he technically by RAW can remain there. Even stand up and fight.
Due to that loophole, the fighter and the rogue can indeed share the same space as long as nobody ends a "movement" in the other's square while he's not helpless.
But, due to this loophole, you could stack 20 unconscious fighters in the square, move the rogue there, channel energy, and all 20 of them can stand up, stay in their square, and keep fighting - clearly not RAI. In fact, in every thread I've discussed RAI, I'm more certain of the RAI in this case than any before.
So if the RAI is not for 20 fighters to share the space after being healed, then it's also not for a fighter and a rogue to share a space.
Ergo, once the fighter is no longer helpless, he must exit that space.
Do the rules actually say you're squeezing while sharing a space, or do they forbid you from sharing a space at the end of the move?
The latter.
You cannot simply squeeze to share a space. By RAW. Previous posters suggested it as a house rule.
You keep saying "cannot end turn" which is incorrect. He cannot end his movement there. If he does not not move, then he can end his turn there. However you handle it at that point is a house rule.
Yeah, yeah, fine, I've already called out that loophole. Feel free to stack a hundred unconscious fighters, all stabilized at -1 HP in the square, then channel energy and let them all stand in that square and full attack any adjacent enemy. No problem having a hundred (medium, etc.) fighters in a single 5'x5' square because the rules only prohibit them from moving there.
Note that the rule only talks about ending "movement" which really isn't a defined game term. By the strictest interpretation, we could take it to mean walking around on his legs. But "movement" could mean swinging a sword (he's moving his arms) or casting a spell or looking around the battlefield or even talking, assuming he moves his lips to talk. So what really is "movement" and what counts as "movement" and what does not?
Interpreting it to mean walking around on his legs could let a man crawl around unrestricted, or let a snake go anywhere it wants. That's too loose. How about "movement" means changing which square you're in, probably by taking an action that propels you via any form of motion for which you have a listed speed? OK, maybe, but better throw magic in there too or mages will occupy everyone's space all the time.
Me, I'll settle on "movement' means "Do something". That might be too simplistic, but it means that a combatant cannot end its "do something" in a space occupied by a non-helpless creature. But to avoid the double-move loophole I described above, I further interpret it to mean the last "do something" at the end of the turn.
Having parsed the rules, this is the only interpretation I can of "movement" that satisfies all the RAW about sharing spaces without causing metagamey loopholes like being unable to move your full 60' or being magically whooshed to the back of the line because there is no way to fit, or being able to stack 100 fighters in a square and let them all fight comfortably.
And, by that definition of "movement", it really only needs to be checked at the end of the turn, with a proviso that the character must choose actions that WILL satisfy that check, otherwise his choice of actions is invalid.
That's why I say "end turn" when really the RAW says "end movement" - because they're more or less synonymous, but "end turn" is much easier to understand.
Again, this is Rules Questions not Houserules Questions. We all know that yes, some silly things happen when you stick to RAW and ignore all else - but it's still very useful for figuring out what the rules of the game actually say.
There is no justification for saying "do something" means "movement" in the rules. Movement means moving from one square to another.
RAW, you can definitely fit 100 fighters in one square, and it's helpful to know that that's what RAW says, even if you don't adjudicate the rules in precisely that way during an actual game.
RAW, you can definitely fit 100 fighters in one square, and it's helpful to know that that's what RAW says, even if you don't adjudicate the rules in precisely that way during an actual game.
If those fighters are Fine sized...sure.
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.
Since this has to be called out specifically permitting multiple creatures in a square for smaller creatures, the underlying general rule would be the opposite that you can't have more than one creature occupying a square, because they don't fit as they are taking up 1 square of space each.
RAW, you can definitely fit 100 fighters in one square, and it's helpful to know that that's what RAW says, even if you don't adjudicate the rules in precisely that way during an actual game.If those fighters are Fine sized...sure.
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.Since this has to be called out specifically permitting multiple creatures in a square for smaller creatures, the underlying general rule would be the opposite that you can't have more than one creature occupying a square, because they don't fit as they are taking up 1 square of space each.
I agree wholeheartedly. That's RAW.
But RAW also allows the OP's situation where a creature moves into a helpless ally's space. Now we have two creatures in one space, which is OK. Then the helpless guy wakes up and stands up. There is no RAW that says he has to leave the space so now both of them are in the same space. By RAW.
In fact, you could do that with a potentially infinite number of helpless allies, heal them all with Channel Energy to be not helpless anymore, and now you have an infinite number of creatures in that space. By RAW.
Which is silly. Insane, even.
Take the strictest (and probably RAI) definition of "movement" and then you NEED house rules to solve the paradox.
So I choose to take the word "movement" to a much less strict non-definition since the word isn't a defined game term in the first place. By simply being much looser in how we define "movement", we can eliminate the insanity without a single house rule.
So:
Strict RAW: insanity.
Lose pseudo-RAW: everything works, no house rules.
I agree it's probably not the RAI of "movement", but it's absolutely not RAI to stack infinite (or even finite large numbers) of people in a single square.
Seems to me to be the lesser of three evils - stretching one loophole in RAW (lack of definition for "movement") is better than insane paradoxes or house rules to prevent insane paradoxes, and I bet Johnny Cochran could defend it in court.
There is a world of difference between allowing 2 people to share a square and 100 people. Taking things to absurd extremes is hardly a convincing counterargument.
2 players ending up in the same square due to vagaries of the game - fine. Someone trying to stabilise 100 fighters at -1hp, stack them in a square, I'll be calling shenanigans long before that point, it just isn't going to happen.
Surely common sense limits and the rules as they stand are more than adequate.
There is a world of difference between allowing 2 people to share a square and 100 people. Taking things to absurd extremes is hardly a convincing counterargument.
2 players ending up in the same square due to vagaries of the game - fine. Someone trying to stabilise 100 fighters at -1hp, stack them in a square, I'll be calling shenanigans long before that point, it just isn't going to happen.
Surely common sense limits and the rules as they stand are more than adequate.
I agree.
But that argument is like saying "Well, the tire only has 1 small leak. It's not like it has one hundred leaks. So we don't need to fix the problem with the tire because 100 leaks would be absurd."
Point being, the RAW, or lack of it in this case, has a hole in it. I don't need to wait until I have 100 holes to know that having just one hole is already a problem.
Whether or not a GM would allow shenanigans with that hole is up to each individual GM. As for me, I would say that letting the OP's rogue and fighter both stand there in the same square, both able to attack and defend normally with no penalties, is already a shenanigan regardless of whether it was done deliberately or as a byproduct of a loophole in the rules.
You can already attack from an ally occupied square without penalty though, so how big a leak is it really.
spring attack
How different is it, in practical terms, from an ally bouncing in and out. Especially as it isn't a situation that is particularly easy to manufacture without extreme risk.
"Yeah, if i take another hit we can both attack at the same time...what? no, no way is he gonna crit"
The part of the story where a hero stands over their wounded ally, who tries their best to get a few hits/shots in despite the pain, is too iconic to rule against. So long as one person is prone, I have no problem with two people sharing a space. Maybe throw a circumstance bonus against them if you think the situation calls for it, but other than that (if even), I wouldn't penalize the upright character.
The worry of having munchkins stuff hundreds of people into a single square is ridiculous (in my opinion) because even while helpless or dead, they still take up space and can therefore result in the terrain becoming difficult, an obstacle or a blocked obstacle, as determined by a semi-lucid GM.