During grid-based combat, can your character move diagonally across a hard corner, such as that created by a corner of a building or similar impassible barrier?
Previous editions and games either said "no" or "GM decides for their table" but I haven't yet been able to find where this is addressed in 2E.
|
You can't move through solid objects. To move diagonally, there can't be a wall on either side of the square in the direction you're moving. No there's no rule stating this, but there's also no rule saying you can't move through walls...
The closest case to support you can't is on page 477 in the Cover section. In the given example, it shows that Merisiel and the Ogre have cover from each other due to the hard corner. If you have cover, that means you wouldn't be able to move freely through in that direction.
You can't move through solid objects. To move diagonally, there can't be a wall on either side of the square in the direction you're moving. No there's no rule stating this, but there's also no rule saying you can't move through walls...
The closest case to support you can't is on page 477 in the Cover section. In the given example, it shows that Merisiel and the Ogre have cover from each other due to the hard corner. If you have cover, that means you wouldn't be able to move freely through in that direction.
Makes sense. Might also help close up other diagonal line issues, like whether you can slip between two people if they're lined up in a diagonal. After all, they're adjacent enough to wrestle ...
Imagine an open doorway with an standing directly on the other side of it, blocking the opening. A ruling on hard corners might dictate whether or not you can diagonally move past the doorway.
Imagine an open doorway with an standing directly on the other side of it, blocking the opening. A ruling on hard corners might dictate whether or not you can diagonally move past the doorway.
Much of that depends on where the door falls on the grid, as some maps are drawn with more regard to realism than others.
So a standard game door on a line and between to grid points, I'd say no, you can't go through diagonally (and special forces CQC tactics supports this, though most door aren't 5' wide so it may not be applicable).For other doors it'd vary not just by spacing but by GM leniency where they say "obviously it'd be X amount of movement" even if it's wonky if rigorously linked to how squares were aligned. A rigorous interpretation would even lead to separate answers depending on where one shifts the grid. And there are diagonal doors, small doors, large doors, etc.
---
As for hard corners I'd say imagine two hard corners coming together. Obviously you couldn't even bypass those. Or imagine a series of alternating hard corners along a diagonal path: one on the right, then the next corner has one of the left, then the next has one on the right, and so on. Running that straight diagonal line seems like it would involve a lot of zigzagging as opposed to another creature running the same distance sans corners.
So yeah, I'd say hard corners remain an obstacle of sorts.
---
I find the "going in between two people close enough to wrestle" example interesting. My gut tells me to let the traveler pass, except what if the two actually are wrestling? And what about all the variant body types there are among creatures, i.e. Gelatinous Cubes or wispy air elemental.
And in game terms, the two opponents are as close to each other as if the sides of their squares lined up. And if the grid were turned, the sides of their squares would line up.
Oy.
Also allowing bypassing enemy lines through such cracks would lead to awkward situations where one "shoulder to shoulder" group can block you, yet another can't unless they bunch up thicker. That seems to make the meta of the map grid a bit to invasive IMO. You'd want to design the room just so, so as to have a line of monsters in an empty space function?
Makes sense. Might also help close up other diagonal line issues, like whether you can slip between two people if they're lined up in a diagonal.
Do you know what also makes sense? Hexagons! But somehow American style RPG's seem to loathe them. ;)
Because objects aren’t as mobile as creatures are, they’re more likely to fill a space. This means you can’t always move [through] their spaces like you might move through a space occupied by a creature. You might be able to occupy the same square as a statue of your size, but not a wide column. The GM determines whether you can [move into] an object’s square normally, whether special rules apply, or if you are unable to [move into] the square at all.
and
If you want to move [through] an unwilling creature’s space, you can Tumble Through that creature’s space using Acrobatics.
I will be using the below linked image to help illustrate my points.
Google Drive ImageFirst I will establish my observations:
- Characters don't take up a full square narrative wise, but they as per rules control that square in its entirety. This determines who can move where and who can end their turn where as well as threatened ranges and the like.
- Consistent language use of "through" suggests to me that movement doesn't involve apparating to the diagonal square, and that a moving character could not cross over into the foe/solid object's square at any point in movement unless they had an action/ability/rule that allowed for it.
EXAMPLE 1
We have one character (1) looking to move past a hostile (hazard), to move past it but not enter it's square it would have to fully enter the square to it's left (even if we assume it doesn't take up a full 5ft square). This is to avoid moving through the hostile's controlled square.
Tumble through could avoid this. It grants a stride and costs no more actions, but it could fail and cannot be used as a part of other actions that grant strides or conditions like quickened from haste that grants a stride action.
EXAMPLE 2
This time there is one character (2) looking to move through two hostiles (hazard) on a diagonal, there is no way for it to get to where it wants to without passing through either controlled 5ft square of the hostiles.
To move it must tumble, use a similar ability, teleport or move around the hostiles.
EXAMPLE 3
There is no way for the character (3) to move to the diagonal square without first fully moving into the square directly above them regardless of how hard they hug the wall. Unless there is an argument that a wall is less tangible than the pillar example given and not counting as an object.
EXAMPLE 4
The hostile completely blocks movement through the door in its current position.
The character (4) would need to use tumble, an ability similar to tumble, a teleport or a shove.
RATIONAL/REALISM ARGUMENT
While at first glance it might seem silly that someone cannot slip between the gap in example 2; there are a few things to consider/remember:
- Hostile foes also move in their squares and control the space
- Hostile foes are likely wielding weapons and even if they aren't you are involved in a fight for your life or at the very least your well being.
Even if foes decided to sit in the middle of their square, took up a 3ft area and weren't wielding any longer weapons like swords or even daggers (as even a dagger would extend reach by 1ft in reality.) it would still only give you 4ft of room to get through. A space that seems large but would feel a HECK of a lot less large in a combat environment.
I take up ~3ft. elbow to elbow, 2ft. if I go in slightly sideways and tuck my arms in (assuming no bulky gear or items) this would leave me 1ft clearance on either side.
My experience with Rugby Union reasons that people move, and a 4ft gap is going to result in you getting hit hard unless they screw up or you have some solid footwork and out maneuver them, which in this case would be the role of Tumble Through
I wouldn't even try vs someone with a weapon, and narratively our characters are happily catching daggers to the gut :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Makes sense. Might also help close up other diagonal line issues, like whether you can slip between two people if they're lined up in a diagonal.Do you know what also makes sense? Hexagons! But somehow American style RPG's seem to loathe them. ;)
I love hexagons. Champions (now part of the Hero System) 40 years ago was using them. Trouble is they're competing with squares which make drawing dungeons & castles so easy. In this computer day an age it's simple to scan, add & swap grids, etc., but back in the day, what you could draw was what you got and them lines helped a lot.
|
Makes sense. Might also help close up other diagonal line issues, like whether you can slip between two people if they're lined up in a diagonal.Do you know what also makes sense? Hexagons! But somehow American style RPG's seem to loathe them. ;)
We don't loathe them, it's just that we have an affinity for 90 degree angles!
|
Do you know what also makes sense? Hexagons! But somehow American style RPG's seem to loathe them. ;)
Agreed, and you won't catch me being an apologist for American measurement and unit tracking standards, that much is for sure.
I've half considered just pitching out all of my square grid paper and just using my several hex rolls going forward though I haven't really considered all of the little consequences that really would have yet.
Are there any rules that specifically dictate whether or not you can move diagonally past a creature? I was thinking that you could, but the example of a diagonal line of enemies above letting people slip past is giving me pause.
Are you talking in the open without other terrain in the picture?
Yeah. Sure.
|
|
Creatures aren't 5x5x5 cubes, they just take up that square while they fight, since attacking and dodging requires some space. So I would say yes you can move diagonally past creatures, even if two creatures are diagonally adjacent to each other. The reason you can't pass through the square with an enemy inside it is because you get close enough that they can physically stop you. Tumble Through is very much like juking an enemy as you move through their square; you move in a way where the enemy is unable to block your path.
You would only be able to stop a creature from moving through adjacent squares if you have a reaction like Stand Still.
So why can I not freely move past a line of enemies standings shoulder to shoulder adjacent to one another, unless they happen to be standing on diagonal squares?
Seems highly inconsistent.
|
|
Has to do with the nature of the grid map that we use. Yeah, a 5' square is a lot of space and if the enemies are humanoid and standing in the middle of the square, there would 4' to 5' of space between them.
Much like a line in an American football game, there may be a hole but the hole can quickly close as the line begins to move.
Limiting movement is needed.
So if the enemy phalanx of adjacent soldiers lines up north to south, a warrior can't get through. If they line up NE to SW, a warrior can get through. That is, depending on what the invisible compass key in the corner of the battlefield says.
In-game warfare must have altered a lot with their GM/god started using one of those plexi-grids you can lay on top of a map and turn to suit your needs.
"What do you mean north-south AND NE-SW formations don't work! That's impossible! Okay gang, keep swiveling until we find the correct angle."
That's why I now lean toward not getting through diagonal gaps in enemies.
Except that leads to intentionally going diagonal to cover more ground. Oi. And that's why we need GMs. :)
So if the enemy phalanx of adjacent soldiers lines up north to south, a warrior can't get through. If they line up NE to SW, a warrior can get through. That is, depending on what the invisible compass key in the corner of the battlefield says.
If they're on a grid N to S, they're 5 feet apart. If they're on NE to SW, that means they're over 7 feet apart. It's not unreasonable that someone could use the extra 2 feet of space to slip through.
It is somewhat unreasonable that you can only stand in the middle of grid squares and not half-way in between them, but that's not a problem I'd want to try to fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think creatures are more in a quantum state as needed for the current mechanic being used. So a Fighter Halfling with a dagger (or gauntlets for that matter) can somehow Whirlwind everybody around, including those 5' above even though they couldn't reach opposite sides of their own square. This includes Tiny creatures on the far side of their square. Very quantum Halflings are.
Trouble with the diagonal is the creatures are both 7' apart and adjacent.
"Can't get any closer, boss."
"What?! There are huge gaps there! Oh wait, where's north? Let's try this again."
Actual phalanxes (and football front lines) have two people per 5', and anything less can be run through. Don't know if you've played Red Rover, Red Rover, but kids have to link hands to even have a chance of stopping somebody. Which is to say, this is all messy business.
ETA: Just realized the enemy could all intentionally grapple one another. Then there'd be a long chain touching each other, yet apart. :P
Trouble with the diagonal is the creatures are both 7' apart and adjacent.
"Can't get any closer, boss."
"What?! There are huge gaps there! Oh wait, where's north? Let's try this again."
Actual phalanxes (and football front lines) have two people per 5', and anything less can be run through. Don't know if you've played Red Rover, Red Rover, but kids have to link hands to even have a chance of stopping somebody. Which is to say, this is all messy business.ETA: Just realized the enemy could all intentionally grapple one another. Then there'd be a long chain touching each other, yet apart. :P
While a person doesn't take up a 5ft square, they are also not stuck in the center of their square and are assumed to be able to effectively control the space. There is a bit of abstraction involved but the gaps narratively aren't as large as you suggest.
In addition to this, gridiron players or soldiers in a Phalanx formation stand shoulder to shoulder because it is more efficient and effective. Not because it is easy to get through gaps like that, relatively so for sure, but not easy in general.
Professional athletes also do a lot of running and footwork training to dodge around other athletes. In addition for Phalanxes it was the safest approach because for every soldier who did slip through it risked their line breaking as people had to fight on both sides. In PF2e we get up to skirmish scale conflicts at most in the vast majority of campaigns, it is a very different set of circumstances.
RAW, you cannot move through a hostile space with a standard stride period. Unless you are ruling that movement is a series of teleports for each 5ft square, moving diagonally while sharing an edge with a hostile will always require your character to move through their space or take a wider berth and enter another square to a greater degree.
Remember, it isn't about if you can get through but what is required to get through, a stride action isn't that as per the rules.
Now there could be an argument to the value of granularity in whether PCs who are only trying to skirt around a target should get a circumstance bonus or have the DC be given the easy or very easy adjustment in the rules; but that is a level of fiddly detail paizo seems to have wanted to avoid in PF2e.
There may also be an argument that small sized creatures should have an advantage in doing this, but again that is something else that Paizo has wanted to avoid (treating small sized creatures as functionally the same as medium in all bar a couple of edge cases)
Maybe there should be an athletics based alternative to tumble, but with higher DCs? who knows.
Maybe there should be an athletics based alternative to tumble, but with higher DCs? who knows.
Shove. Push them back five feet and stride in after.
RAW, you cannot move through a hostile space with a standard stride period. Unless you are ruling that movement is a series of teleports for each 5ft square
RAW, that's exactly what movement is. You're in one square, and then you're in another. There are no rules for being in a half-way state.
If we're ignoring RAW and trying to add a little realism, when you move diagonally you would have to very briefly occupy a small corner of one or both of the adjacent squares. Moving around a hard corner this way should be difficult - you'd barely have to go out of your way. Certainly closer to a diagonal than to a ten-foot orthogonal double move. However, to do this you'd have to briefly pass through the opposite square. If that was occupied too, you might have a problem. If there was a fire in that square and you would take 1d6 damage for passing directly through it, I might say you take one point of damage for partial exposure.
If passing through a diagonal wall of enemies, we might house-rule an Acrobatics check to see if you can catch them off-guard. If they're using Readied actions to stop you, you'd have a bigger problem.
Wait, are some people saying you can move between two diagonally adjacent opponents while others are saying you can't move diagonally past one opponent??
That's some extreme variation IMO.
And currently both are possible as technically one doesn't move even a little into those spaces, which is why hard corners pose a conundrum yet I can't quite see it for soft corners/enemies.
And yet, there's always the Gelatinous Cube to muddy up spacing questions even further. :P
Wait, are some people saying you can move between two diagonally adjacent opponents while others are saying you can't move diagonally past one opponent??
That's some extreme variation IMO.And currently both are possible as technically one doesn't move even a little into those spaces, which is why hard corners pose a conundrum yet I can't quite see it for soft corners/enemies.
And yet, there's always the Gelatinous Cube to muddy up spacing questions even further. :P
Yep. I see why hexes are popular now. (Although I remember a hex-based game having some effects limited to the hex-line. So if the hex grid's north-south, you couldn't do it due east or west.) Still, we have what we have.
Personally, as far as slipping between two 'diagonal' enemies, I think it's too good to be true that you can slip through. As far as a single enemy? Hard to say, but I'm slightly leaning against.
Where it gets fun is diagonal walls, of course. Especially since sometimes that's what you need. Yeesh..
Hexes have got their problems too.
We need new ideas for grids: I support the one with octagons and little squares, I guess it would work well, better than the one with squares of two different sizes.
Yeah, I'm half serious.
|
|
Wanted to bump this back up to see if we could get some clarity. Moving diagonally seems to be a constant debate and something the remaster hasn’t addressed. Also, I’m not able to find anywhere that calls out “hard corners” in pf2, but it seems many gms use them. Rules as written seem to apply you can move diagonal through two enemies stacked diagonally and just as easily move with an enemy and a wall in a diagonal.
Correct that “hard corners” have been removed from 2E. Search the Core rulebooks if curious. I’m of the mindset that diagonals create that extra space of 7 feet which gets rid of the realistic problem through game abstraction.
|
|
Sure, They are removed, but most GMs don't run it that way in my experience. I believe there's an assumption they still exist on many levels. The problem with diagonals giving extra space is your first diagonal counts as 5 feet, and therefore can't be extra space. Seems there is room for clarity if the intent is otherwise.
Sure, They are removed, but most GMs don't run it that way in my experience. I believe there's an assumption they still exist on many levels. The problem with diagonals giving extra space is your first diagonal counts as 5 feet, and therefore can't be extra space. Seems there is room for clarity if the intent is otherwise.
Yes, for counting movement that works. However, to get into the second diagonal it’s 10 feet of movement. Therefore from one corner of the first square to the farthest corner of the second you’ve got 15 feet. That’s why calling each square 7.5 feet corner to corner makes some sense. At least that’s how I was reading Castillano’s post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh, what an interesting looking thread!
*Clicks Link*
Oh.
XD
|
|
You can't move through solid objects. To move diagonally, there can't be a wall on either side of the square in the direction you're moving. No there's no rule stating this, but there's also no rule saying you can't move through walls...
The closest case to support you can't is on page 477 in the Cover section. In the given example, it shows that Merisiel and the Ogre have cover from each other due to the hard corner. If you have cover, that means you wouldn't be able to move freely through in that direction.
In the years since I made this post I have changed my stance on hard corners. Moving around them is fine, you cna do it with no penalties. I mainly changed this view because I made a grid IRL with a hard corner and tried moving diagonally. The wall barely made a difference in time it took to move between the centers of the squares.
I do still consider them cover, as you can easily keep to the wall to have cover from people on the other side of the corner. The 5ft space is just an abstraction after all, so you could be anywhere within that space during combat.
Ooh, what an interesting looking thread!
*Clicks Link*
Oh.
XD
I have to admit, it took until reevos' first post to realize that this thread hadn't been started this week. I thought it was a little strange, but I was full ready to believe that this could have been only the latest in your line of "seemingly obvious question has no explicit answer" threads up to that point.
Anyway, I've always thought hexes were great in theory up until you go indoors.
As for the original question... by pure mouthfeel and based on what I think I remember of 1e's rules, I'd say...
- No to crossing a wall on the diagonal
- Yes to crossing a lone creature on the diagonal
- Maybe to passing between two creatures on the diagonal, pending the results of the inevitable table debate that occurs when either a slippery foe or a cornered character creates a desperate case in favour/against being able to escape that way.
(reference to 1e because that would be where these biases were formed, regardless whether they would have been correct in that edition, either)
For these cases there's Tumble through in this system.
An issue with pf2e is that if you have not taken every chance to maximize an option like Tumble Through, the odds of being able to successfully do it in combat are near 0. A +1 vs +4 DEX difference alone is 15%. If they are a single Training rank and +1 item bonus behind, that's a 30% worse chance than that DEX PC who still may fail their own attempt.
It's a big problem with the idea of scaling DCs, and the notion that even an expert must have a significant chance to fail at basic actions.
Unironically, at some point Athletics PCs will be able to jump over the corners with Assurance like a superhero while still being unable to Tumble past foes.
If I was a GM, I think most circumstances I would allow enemy corner crossing with a -10 ft to their Stride or some other cost. Not a fail chance that's unbalanced to begin with.
In my own games, I'd probably stick with 1e rules since it's what we know, what we're used to, and is the only official precedent we've got. If it's a hard corner that fills up the square, you can't move diagonally past it. If it's a creature, a creature is not a hard corner and typically does not fill there full space, and so you can move diagonally past it. You can move diagonally past lined creatures as well if they are not formed up properly to fill the gaps; I don't like that, but we need to draw the line somewhere and at least it's consistent with the first two rulings.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my own games, I'd probably stick with 1e rules since it's what we know, what we're used to, and is the only official precedent we've got. If it's a hard corner that fills up the square, you can't move diagonally past it. If it's a creature, a creature is not a hard corner and typically does not fill there full space, and so you can move diagonally past it. You can move diagonally past lined creatures as well if they are not formed up properly to fill the gaps; I don't like that, but we need to draw the line somewhere and at least it's consistent with the first two rulings.
That's also what I've seen most people default to.
The gaps in the diagonal line of creatures are ugly, but arguing against them also is ugly. A diagonal line of four squares counts for 30 feet of movement, would be weird if you could block that with 4 creatures while a regular horizontal 30 feet line would take 6 creatures to block.
This is a side effect of trying to grid space. Whatever grid you choose is going to be ugly in some way. Square grids are bad at these diagonals, as well as drawing nice 10ft AoO circles. Hex grids are ugly at mapping indoors locations.