Why can't a line of people block diagonal movement?

Rules Discussion

Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

SEE DIAGRAM

Why is it that a line of people standing shoulder to shoulder can block Ghorash the Orc's movement when he moves orthogonally, but not when he's moving diagonally?

Shouldn't a line of people standing shoulder to shoulder block someone regardless of their facing?

 8 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering that the grid is a game mechanic, not something in-world, just realign the grid if it becomes important.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

Or switch to a hex grid.

 6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a result of abstracting positioning and movement (the bodily kind, not the from grid space to grid space kind) that results in the grid representing that you're not filling your entire space simultaneously, and that center of one square to center of the next is a lesser distance for the bodies involved to cover when the orientation is orthogonal than it is when diagonal.

Or to phrase that differently: Ghorash can't fit through a ~5-foot gap, but he can fit through a ~7.5-foot gap.

Because as thenobledrake said, they are spread out over a longer distance when they are at the diagonal. Three squares going diagonally is 20 feet, but only 15 feet for the vertical or horizontal. They literally are more spread out, allowing enough space to pass between.

To cover a 100ft vertical line on a grid with 5ft increments you need 20 people. For a 100ft diagonal line on a grid with 5ft increments as done in the picture you need 20/sqrt(2) ~ 14 people. To make it actually work for a vertical line in pathfinder you need ~ 27 people zig-zagging up and down across the 100 feet. Neither option is perfect, and so no matter what they go with one way will always be more efficient than the other. As it stands vertical / horizontal is more efficient than diagonal. If it becomes particularly important in an encounter then the best solution is to ask your GM if there's enough people to position themselves to block off an enemy and force them to tumble through.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Or switch to a hex grid.

This is the easiest solution, other than straight walls ending up a little funky with this type of grid.

 7 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes it feels like you are just looking for problems with the rules that don't really come up in actual play, and the answer is almost always "it's an abstraction" and "if it ends up actually being a problem, the GM can just deal with it"

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

In the game of American Football, blockers line up in a line and nonetheless sometimes the defenders manage to get through the line between the center and a guard, or a guard and a tackle. Imagine this situation like that.

 6 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
In the game of American Football, blockers line up in a line and nonetheless sometimes the defenders manage to get through the line between the center and a guard, or a guard and a tackle. Imagine this situation like that.

"Dang it, I hate playing at their stadium; they've aligned the gridiron diagonally to the equator!" -Meta-aware Offensive lineman.

Depends on your perception of how movement works, is it a series of teleports or is it just a measurement/positioning abstraction.

RAW it can be read both ways, personally I read the following literally

Quote:
"If you want to move through an unwilling creature’s space, you can Tumble Through that creature’s space using Acrobatics."

And to move diagonally between two foes without moving through their space that requires abstracting movement to the point of teleporting.

As for grid iron or rugby players, I see them as taking tumble through checks, this lines up with them not succeeding every time and having to train extensively to do so. Assuming a battle of life and death throwing yourself through such relatively small gaps without relying on your reflexes to dodge through the enemy becomes less of a nobrainer imo.

But I wouldn't hold it against people who run it in a more abstract sense even if I do question how they handle other obstacles.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Depends on your perception of how movement works, is it a series of teleports or is it just a measurement/positioning abstraction.

RAW it can be read both ways, personally I read the following literally

Quote:
"If you want to move through an unwilling creature’s space, you can Tumble Through that creature’s space using Acrobatics."
And to move diagonally between two foes without moving through their space that requires abstracting movement to the point of teleporting.

I don't see how moving between two human sized creatures standing roughly 7ft apart requires teleporting either in the game or in real life.

Also, I wouldn't call that interpretation as reading it "literally". Well... maybe. It kind of depends on what you mean by that.
There are 2 ways in which two creatures spaced in the way the original post described / showed can block a creature trying to move in between them based on a literal reading of that sentence. Note: One of these is kind of ridiculous, but I included both for the heck of it.
1. You're moving through both of the creature's spaces to get past them. By this logic rounding corners isn't really a thing, and diagonal movement should only be done when both spaces are free. Honestly, this one kind of makes sense, but I don't know a lot of people who run the game that way, so making this one exception would be weird. Idk, though, perhaps that's just how you run the game. Nothing wrong with that.
2. Moving "through" any space in between two enemy creatures is impossible. I'm going to assume this isn't what you meant, as it would mean that 2 people standing 100ft apart create an impassable wall between them.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Why is it that a line of people standing shoulder to shoulder can block Ghorash the Orc's movement when he moves orthogonally, but not when he's moving diagonally?

Shouldn't a line of people standing shoulder to shoulder block someone regardless of their facing?

They're not standing shoulder to shoulder.

Go to an actual real-life room. Say about 20x20feet room. Bring four friends. Arrange them in a line vertically and have them stretch out their arms. They should be just about able to form an unbroken line (going with the conventional "2x arm's length = 5ft" formula). So you can't walk through this line without ducking under (a tumble check) or pushing through (some kind of shoving action).

Now reposition them along the room's diagonal and tell them to again spread out their arms. This time, they won't be able to make an unbroken line, because the diagonal is (by the Pythagorean theorem) 28 feet. So there's going to be a gap that you can walk through without touching them.

---

To avoid having to do square roots Pathfinder uses a non-Euclidean distance measure, but the principle remains the same.

If you have a 20x20ft room on your battlemat, then a vertical line through it is going to be 20ft. But the central diagonal is 30ft. So four creatures blocking the vertical is four creatures each blocking 5ft each; four of them blocking the diagonal means each of them is trying to defend 7.5 feet. They're overextended and can't hold the line. (And 7.5ft is definitely not shoulder to shoulder..)

Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't mind that diagonals take up more space due to game math and that's used as a rational to allow characters through. I do mind that you only need two people to block someone orthogonally, but require three people to block someone diagonally. There's just no logic there. Shouldn't it take the same number of blockers regardless of facing?

That's just the nature of a square grid unfortunately.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
I don't mind that diagonals take up more space due to game math and that's used as a rational to allow characters through. I do mind that you only need two people to block someone orthogonally, but require three people to block someone diagonally. There's just no logic there. Shouldn't it take the same number of blockers regardless of facing?

No, it shouldn't take the same number of blockers to block differing sizes of area - you're saying "there's no logic" while throwing the provided logic out whole-cloth.

Either we measure with actual measurements and you have to know the bodily width of your character, arm length, and factor in a figure for how far you can lean without becoming over-extended and no longer being an effective blocker so that 2 people always cover the same distance regardless of orientation... or we use a grid system that deliberate trades precision for ease of use and speed of play.

Ravingdork wrote:

Why is it that a line of people standing shoulder to shoulder can block Ghorash the Orc's movement when he moves orthogonally, but not when he's moving diagonally?

Shouldn't a line of people standing shoulder to shoulder block someone regardless of their facing?

The grid map is just an abstraction way to help the players to know their positions it isn't an strict rule the say "you shoud not pass here but pass there". The rules just say you cannot pass trough a hostile creature position (without an Acrobatics check) but a friendly creature can!

So it's no exactly like the creatures are shoulder to shoulder, they are just closer enough to try to block a foe way. So as GM I simply don't allow to exploit the map corners to pass I always will ask an Acrobatics check in these cases.

Remember that an TRPG uses many tools to help the players to understand the game and play, but they are not perfect. That's one of the GM attributions to rule the situations and create, adapt or ignore rules that aren't making sense for a specific situation.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
Considering that the grid is a game mechanic, not something in-world, just realign the grid if it becomes important.

This is really the correct answer.

Players agree to trade precision for ease of play by using the grid. If the grid is preventing you from doing something, either change the grid, abandon the grid, or accept that you are dealing with a consequence of the simplification everyone agreed to at the start.

If being able to spontaneously form an impenetrable diagonal line in the middle of combat is that important, you can as a group switch to hexes or rulers.

Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So in short, the lack of logical precision is a failing of the game in this particular instance and house rules are required to fix it? Darn.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not like only Pathfinder has this issue. I don't remember seeing any games that use a square grid that don't have this issue.

Edit: Actually, the GMG brings up some issues with diagonals and offers a hex grid as an alternative. It's mostly in reference to distance travelled, but still.

Maps and Miniatures: Gamemastery Guide pg. 13 wrote:

Hex Grids

Some of the challenges of diagonal movement can be fixed by using a hex grid instead of a square grid, or by using a grid with offset squares, which works similarly. This allows you to count movement the same in all directions. However, it makes flanking a bit harder to pull off, requires you to arrange standard Large and larger miniatures differently, and causes challenges when drawing maps that consist primarily of rectangular structures, since you’ll have a lot of partially occupied hexes.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Why?

These types of issues have been a problem ever since 3E launched. This is what happens when you try to simulate an analog world in digital format. As some have said switching to a hex system would improve the resolution of your game space. Eliminating the grid and just going with tape measure distancing would be even better. 5-ft squares to represent something as complex as tactical distancing might be convenient, but it is a terrible way to simulate combat.

If it comes up enough to be a real issue in your games, you could use a rule similar to Star Saga (probably used other places too) where you can't move diagonally if the two square you go "between" are both blocked.

Stack wrote:
If it comes up enough to be a real issue in your games, you could use a rule similar to Star Saga (probably used other places too) where you can't move diagonally if the two square you go "between" are both blocked.

That's a decent rule.

I've always thought a hostile creatures space should act like a hard corner anyways and disallow diagonal movement.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ever play Red Rover?

I know it's been said before by several others but I feel as if it hasn't really been seen. If they are standing shoulder to shoulder, either they have tremendous shoulders or they are blocking an area of the map much smaller than one 5' space per person.

Trust me, this sort of thing used to aggrieve me, too, but since I've realized it doesn't actually matter very much? if you need to simulate a line of infantry, use a troop or give the mooks an ability that states something like, "these units march in tight formations, foes cannot cross the diagonal between two or more units standing adjacent, and maybe the Tumble DC is higher, too"

Or just add a second line of defence. Even if the party can tumble through the first line, they couldn't manage the second. If that's too many monsters for the encounter budget, use weaker soldiers or remember that PCs only rarely fight more than a handful foes that they can't mow down at a time

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
So in short, the lack of logical precision is a failing of the game in this particular instance and house rules are required to fix it? Darn.

It has less to do with logical precision but with mathematical precision.

A diagonal is 1.41421... times the lengths of the horizontal or vertical line.

You don't have partial characters. So you need to round.

Rounding down: 1.41... becomes 1.

This means - you can't move through a diagonal

Rounding up: 1.41.... becomes 2.

This means you need a double line of characters to prevent someone passing

Real examples:
A diagonal line of 2 characters represents 2.828 equivalents of straight squares - so the double line (3 char) is closer to 2.82 as allowing someone through (2 char)

A diagonal line of 3 characters represents 4.243 equivalents of straight squares - so neither the double line (5 char) nor the single line (3 char) is mathematically close.

So the best approximation would be the equivalent of the diagonal movement. Instead of every second square count double movement you would say every second diagonal gap needs a double row.

And that is just too complex.

As even Paizo can't change how Maths works you therefore have to go with

a) move to a non-square grid
b) require double lines to block
c) require single lines

a) is mathematically more accurate as b) is more accurate as c).

So Paizo went with the simplest option (not changing the grid) while being as precise mathematically as possible (b).

Edit d) every other gap is double filled. Mathematically superior to b and c while keeping a square grid - but with a diagonal of 2 it is the same as a double line and only would make a difference if you have a diagonal of 3 or more.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
I don't mind that diagonals take up more space due to game math and that's used as a rational to allow characters through. I do mind that you only need two people to block someone orthogonally, but require three people to block someone diagonally. There's just no logic there. Shouldn't it take the same number of blockers regardless of facing?

No, because the line you're trying to hold isn't the same length. The diagonal line is longer than the orthogonal lines. Both in Pathfinder distance-measuring, but also in real life.

Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I don't mind that diagonals take up more space due to game math and that's used as a rational to allow characters through. I do mind that you only need two people to block someone orthogonally, but require three people to block someone diagonally. There's just no logic there. Shouldn't it take the same number of blockers regardless of facing?
No, because the line you're trying to hold isn't the same length. The diagonal line is longer than the orthogonal lines. Both in Pathfinder distance-measuring, but also in real life.

And unless you're playing theater of the mind, the game doesn't seem to allow you to bunch up a little bit more closely on the diagonal, which is precisely the problem.

Welcome to...every square grid ever?

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I don't mind that diagonals take up more space due to game math and that's used as a rational to allow characters through. I do mind that you only need two people to block someone orthogonally, but require three people to block someone diagonally. There's just no logic there. Shouldn't it take the same number of blockers regardless of facing?
No, because the line you're trying to hold isn't the same length. The diagonal line is longer than the orthogonal lines. Both in Pathfinder distance-measuring, but also in real life.
And unless you're playing theater of the mind, the game doesn't seem to allow you to bunch up a little bit more closely on the diagonal, which is precisely the problem.

I mean... you can, though. You could put 3 people there, like so:

x = person
o = empty
oooo
oxoo
oxxo
oooo

oooo
oxoo
ooxo
oooo

As many have pointed out this is less efficient than orthogonal per real life distance unit, especially as the number of squares you want to block off increases beyond 2 diagonally, but if the second option was allowed to block off that diagonal, then that would make orthogonal blocking less efficient than diagonal. Either way one is going to be more efficient than the other, and either way with enough people you can block off any 2-d line on the map.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I don't mind that diagonals take up more space due to game math and that's used as a rational to allow characters through. I do mind that you only need two people to block someone orthogonally, but require three people to block someone diagonally. There's just no logic there. Shouldn't it take the same number of blockers regardless of facing?
No, because the line you're trying to hold isn't the same length. The diagonal line is longer than the orthogonal lines. Both in Pathfinder distance-measuring, but also in real life.
And unless you're playing theater of the mind, the game doesn't seem to allow you to bunch up a little bit more closely on the diagonal, which is precisely the problem.

The point is that two adjacent characters in a straight line are blocking a 10' facing, while two characters in a diagonal line are trying to block a (essentially) 15' facing, which is just too much for them: Stick a third character 'between' them (turning your 'line' into a 'triangle') and you'll have the appropriate manpower to cover a facing of that size.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't play on grid then

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I don't mind that diagonals take up more space due to game math and that's used as a rational to allow characters through. I do mind that you only need two people to block someone orthogonally, but require three people to block someone diagonally. There's just no logic there. Shouldn't it take the same number of blockers regardless of facing?
No, because the line you're trying to hold isn't the same length. The diagonal line is longer than the orthogonal lines. Both in Pathfinder distance-measuring, but also in real life.
And unless you're playing theater of the mind, the game doesn't seem to allow you to bunch up a little bit more closely on the diagonal, which is precisely the problem.

Hex grids are not theater of the mind and yet allow you to do this

WWHsmackdown wrote:
Don't play on grid then

Or, if your table agrees with you that this has to be considered a game issue, you could go with a homebrew rule.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If you allow it, it would always be far more efficient to stack diagonally rather than along the grid.

If you had Diagonal movement like in D&D then sure, but with how diagonals work in pathfinder it wouldn't make sense to stop creatures from moving through diagonals like this.

Ravingdork wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I don't mind that diagonals take up more space due to game math and that's used as a rational to allow characters through. I do mind that you only need two people to block someone orthogonally, but require three people to block someone diagonally. There's just no logic there. Shouldn't it take the same number of blockers regardless of facing?
No, because the line you're trying to hold isn't the same length. The diagonal line is longer than the orthogonal You lines. Both in Pathfinder distance-measuring, but also in real life.
And unless you're playing theater of the mind, the game doesn't seem to allow you to bunch up a little bit more closely on the diagonal, which is precisely the problem.

Actually, it does. You just need to consider a thicker diagonal, one that has a third character blocking the perpendicular square.

I just skimmed a lot of the arguments for/against (etc), but what I’m weirdly most interested in is where it says you CAN move diagonally between foes. We’ve never allowed it, but never really knew if it was a rule or not, just assumed you couldn’t. Is it explicitly defined somewhere by chance?
Thanks!

Dreamer3333 wrote:

I just skimmed a lot of the arguments for/against (etc), but what I’m weirdly most interested in is where it says you CAN move diagonally between foes. We’ve never allowed it, but never really knew if it was a rule or not, just assumed you couldn’t. Is it explicitly defined somewhere by chance?

Thanks!

Necromancers abound.

But to answer your question, it's not expressly stated whether you can or can't do this (hence the original question).

By RAW, you can, because it's considered a normal space. If I can diagonal 5 feet to another cardinal direction from an enemy without two creatures, adding another enemy shouldn't change that.

The complaint stems from why diagonals can be stepped through, but not orthogonals, and the argument of "it's more raw distance, so it's not as capable" makes sense. It's one of the concessions to be made with square grids compared to hex ones. The problem with hex grids are that it is more difficult to adjudicate accurate distance(s)/area(s) with it. Each comes with their advantages and disadvantages.

In an alternative game system where characters can block on the diagonals:

"How come three people can block a 21 foot diagonal line across a 15 by 15 room, but it takes four people to block a 20 foot horizontal line?"

Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:

In an alternative game system where characters can block on the diagonals:

"How come three people can block a 21 foot diagonal line across a 15 by 15 room, but it takes four people to block a 20 foot horizontal line?"

And in an alternate reality I would probably still have been the one making that post. XD

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

In an alternative game system where characters can block on the diagonals:

"How come three people can block a 21 foot diagonal line across a 15 by 15 room, but it takes four people to block a 20 foot horizontal line?"

Sounds like if we used Hexes instead of Squares. Funny how that works...

Dreamer3333 wrote:

I just skimmed a lot of the arguments for/against (etc), but what I’m weirdly most interested in is where it says you CAN move diagonally between foes. We’ve never allowed it, but never really knew if it was a rule or not, just assumed you couldn’t. Is it explicitly defined somewhere by chance?

Thanks!

It's the other way around: there isn't any rule saying a diagonal line of enemies blocks movement.

There actually isn't a rule saying a horizontal or vertical line of enemies blocks movement either. But in those cases, you'd have to move through squares with enemies in them. And we do have rules about that (Tumble). The thing is, a single-width diagonal line of enemies just leaves gaps. A double-width diagonal line of enemies would actually block movement:

P___
EE__
_EE_
__EE

The P(layer) can't move through this diagonal line without passing through an enemy square.

Yeah, you need a lot MORE people to block a diagonal line, but that's a glitch caused by game mechanics with a square grid geometry, but our common sense using a full Euclidean geometry.

If you used a hex grid, this would work better, because hexes only have three-way nodes so all lines are just as solid on the grid as they look like.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I don't mind that diagonals take up more space due to game math and that's used as a rational to allow characters through. I do mind that you only need two people to block someone orthogonally, but require three people to block someone diagonally. There's just no logic there. Shouldn't it take the same number of blockers regardless of facing?
No, because the line you're trying to hold isn't the same length. The diagonal line is longer than the orthogonal lines. Both in Pathfinder distance-measuring, but also in real life.
And unless you're playing theater of the mind, the game doesn't seem to allow you to bunch up a little bit more closely on the diagonal, which is precisely the problem.

I mean... you can, though. You could put 3 people there, like so:

⭕ = enemy
⚫ = player character
⬅️ = PC direction
⬜ = empty
⬛ = wall

⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⭕⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬜⬜⬜⬜⭕⭕⬅️⚫⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⭕⭕⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⭕⭕⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛

⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⭕⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⭕⬅️⬅️⚫⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬅️⬅️⬅️↙️⭕⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⭕⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛

As many have pointed out this is less efficient than orthogonal per real life distance unit, especially as the number of squares you want to block off increases beyond 2 diagonally, but if the second option was allowed to block off that diagonal, then that would make orthogonal blocking less efficient than diagonal. Either way one is going to be more efficient than the other, and either way with enough people you can block off any 2-d line on the map.

Ascalaphus wrote:
Dreamer3333 wrote:

I just skimmed a lot of the arguments for/against (etc), but what I’m weirdly most interested in is where it says you CAN move diagonally between foes. We’ve never allowed it, but never really knew if it was a rule or not, just assumed you couldn’t. Is it explicitly defined somewhere by chance?

Thanks!

It's the other way around: there isn't any rule saying a diagonal line of enemies blocks movement.

There actually isn't a rule saying a horizontal or vertical line of enemies blocks movement either. But in those cases, you'd have to move through squares with enemies in them. And we do have rules about that (Tumble). The thing is, a single-width diagonal line of enemies just leaves gaps. A double-width diagonal line of enemies would actually block movement:

↘️⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬜↘️⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬜↘️⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬜↘️⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⚫⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⭕⭕⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⭕⭕⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⭕⭕⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜

The Player (⚫) can't move through this diagonal line without passing through an enemy square (⭕).

Yeah, you need a lot MORE people to block a diagonal line, but that's a glitch caused by game mechanics with a square grid geometry, but our common sense using a full Euclidean geometry.

If you used a hex grid, this would work better, because hexes only have three-way nodes so all lines are just as solid on the grid as they look like.

I made the diagrams a little bit easier for everyone to read. ☺

Nice use of non-standard symbols

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Alternately, turn the grid off and break out a tape measure. 1" = 5' move your characters around freely. 5' reach, anything within an inch is a fair target.

Welcome (back) to wargaming, which in many ways is the grandparent of modern roleplaying games. This also allows for actual circles, lines and cones rather than the corner cuts you deal with on a square grid.

Provides for an equal level of tactical simulation to account for abilities that would require a grid.

BishopMcQ wrote:

Alternately, turn the grid off and break out a tape measure. 1" = 5' move your characters around freely. 5' reach, anything within an inch is a fair target.

Welcome (back) to wargaming, which in many ways is the grandparent of modern roleplaying games. This also allows for actual circles, lines and cones rather than the corner cuts you deal with on a square grid.

Provides for an equal level of tactical simulation to account for abilities that would require a grid.

The old Warhammer player in me keeps returning to this everytime I see a similar discussion. Foundry supports that, and I may set up a scene of that kind for my players and see how it goes.

Edit: and I even know the perfect scene for that! But it will be at the end of the campaign I'm still working at, so we are talking about a few years in he future, probably...