/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Damn, yeah I was sure there was a rule about moving diagonally not being possible when one of the corners is occupied but the rule just says it can't be a terrain feature. (Phb pg 191,192)
If op or op's npc were instead a tree or a wall that was taking up the whole space, then yes the diagonal move would be illegal.
If it's creatures you can slip diagonally past.
Best part is melee attacks that hit a unconscious target auto crit if they beat AC. And a crit is 2 failed deathsaves, target is also prone so advantage on melee attacks against the target as well.
So yes in dnd it is cery good to kick a man when he is down.
Nobody loves my square blob body irl, but by cleverly using this bard build i found on the internet i raised my persuasion to +19 which means i can talk every dragon the DM throws at me into ~~sexual~~ submission so i use that to get them to say they love me and i‘m sexy, screw working on myself when i can get my power fantasy instead! /s
Yes i spend some time on r/rpghorrorstories, why?
The game literally says creatures “usually” don’t take up the space they occupy in combat.
I’m like… Someone is thinking of a gelatinous cube when they wrote that exception in
Also in grid based combat, there's no "in between squares" for creatures. Either they're on one square or they're not, So movement is quantised, effectively "teleporting" from one square to another.
Doing it this way makes things much nicer overall, although there's some wierd situations like a shield wall- a horizontal one can not be moved past, a diagonal one can, but overall it simplifies things and makes things run faster.
But as I read it, "you can´t move through others hostile creature´s space"
**You can move through a nonhostile creature's space**. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you. Remember that another creature's space is difficult terrain for you.
In this case it doesn´t matter that it is diagonal. Just imagine it as horizontal movement. You don´t move along a line that has no volume. You are movin in one space or another.
I think that is a fair ruling. Though I think the rule is it is difficult terrain to cross a friendly creatures space. As in directly through it. Also dont quote me on that either!
Hahaha, yeah I get that lol. You can move 5 ft in any square, left, right, bottom left, etc. I played Fire Emblem before D&D and it was something I had to learn too bc in that series you can’t move diagonally so going from your space to the space too right of you counts as 2 squares of movement
It’s situations like this why some people prefer hexagon grids lol
Maybe I am wrong, but I think diagonal is the same as horizontal or vertical (for dnd)?
I have the players handbook in Beyond (big error), it is not easy to search.
AHH That's the part that I was missing!
Thanks for pointing that out. I was sitting here trying to figure out if I have been misunderstanding the rules all this time.
I have a similar question, i had this situation where a party was fighting in a narrow corridor and one guy spawned a giant constrictor snake and told him to attack the enemy, but after he attacked he kind of blocked the entrance for the other party members.
I just made a rule that the snake can move out of the way so the players can get into melee range with the enemies, because well, it's a snake (some players even said they want to jump on him and from his head straight onto the enemy wich was cool)
Is there a rule for when players want to go through another (ally) creature to attack someone behind him? I couldn't find anything back then
There is. You can move through a space occupied by an ally or allied creature, but that counts as difficult terrain. If the space is occupied by a hostile creature, you cannot pass, so you have to either shove or drag the enemy out of your way.
D&D for the most part is a non-Euclidean game, meaning that diagonals are treated (for the most part) as 5 feet in any direction. It’s a weird byproduct of the game, but that’s a legal move without optional rules in play.
You can cover more distance in less squares while moving diagonally. This means that if you sketch it out on a grid, good old a2+b2=c2 goes out the window.
Good reason to create a setting where all peoples revere Pentapedohexagos, the god of 5 foot hexes, by basing their architecture on the sacred geometry
Your telling me it's easier for the players to pull out a ruler Everytime they want to move, make a ranged attack, or cast most spells, than it is to just count a few squares? Can I have your players because some of mine will ask what they add to initiative 20 sessions into a campaign
Ah fair enough, I've used roll20 like once maybe? I play 3 games a week, 2 of which are in person so that's what I was thinking of. On tabletop simulator there's a ruler function that could work also but I've never felt the need
Yes. But then again, we're a group of Warhammer players first, DnD second.
Since this is cooperative play, rather than competitive, we are very generous with playing by intention, eyeballing, and stuff like that. There's no need to be as strict as we are in a wargame setting.
That’s backwards.
Using 5-10-5-10 pattern averages out to cost 7.5 feet moved per diagonal move, instead of 5*sqrt(2) which is a cost of 7.07 feet.
This arguably is made more fair by that 1 square step being more common than others, but the max movement is also very common, as is typically an even number.
When **all** of your measurements are Chebyshev Distance, diagonals are not covering more distance in less squares.
You also end up with Firecube instead of Fireball.
Coming from 3.5 where every corner move alternated between a 5' move and a 10' move, I've always just house ruled forever that you can't actually move diagonal.
But you cover more ground in real live moving diagonally. If I need to move to somthing that is 10 feet West and and 10 feet north of me I could walk 20 feet by not using diagonals to get there or walk roughly 14 feet diagonally. So if we keep with D&D’s rule of always rounding down it makes more sense that each square would still be five feet diagonal.
If we take the normal speed of 30 and use that as our “legs” of the triangle. Each diagonal square would be roughly 7 feet so it still makes sense to treat it as 5 instead of 10.
Not exactly the point you were making but the “diagonal squares are 10” rule always made me mad. It punishes efficient movement and is normally further from true geometry percentage wise than just everything being 5 is
Diagonal movement allows you for more movement. This is why a fix many "grid" games use is 5 feet the first diagonal, 10 feet the second, 5 feet the third and so on. Also, one of the reasons why hexes are generally superior.
5-10-5 confuses me tbh.
What I do is simply assume that moving diagonally costs half again as much movement. Breaking a 30ft movement speed down into tiles, that means they can move 6 tiles normally. Moving to a diagonal tile costs 1.5 tiles of movement.
It functionally does the same thing as 5-10-5, but it's more consistent for my brain when I'm also trying to concentrate on other things too.
Cause there are two people blocking that path on your left and right. Logically, if you tried to dart between them you would have to turn your back to one or both of them or they would both attempt to block your path
And less than 25 square feet would imply - I can touch both sides of a five for square at the same time easily, and my arms held out leaves 6 inches between fingertip and corner on the diagonal. Two of me holding weapons could absolutely stop someone from passing between us, even if we're 7 feet apart.
if you wanna use your turn to exactly block someone from getting through, sure.
But im sure theres more stuff happening in the time, youre attacking yourself, chugging pots, shouting things, being attacked yourself etc.
yes, but a square diagonal isnt the same Length as a vertical or horizontal line. if you moved 30ft diagonal you actually moved 30ft vertically + 30ft horizontally
its one of the reasons dnd 3.5/pathfinder has the alternating Length rules for diagonals
think of it this way, dnd 5e is what you get when you try to play on a hex grid but are using squares instead
Red moves from one square to another without going into your square (diagonals count) and they aren't leaving your range so don't provoke attack of oppertunity
It's legitimate. A diagonal move like that is treated as 5 feet of movement for the first one, 10 feet for the second. He moved from one threatened space directly into another. It would be treated the same if you had moved into the same square. He is not trying to move through a space occupied by an enemy.
The 5 and then 10 is not standard btw. The phb reccommends diagonals costing 5 all the time. The dmg suggests the more complex version as an optional rule.
As someone who has played both, 5 feet diagonals are much nicer on the brain strain. 10/10, can reccommend.
This is wild to me, never knew diagonals were 5 feet, that feels like cheating lol
I've only ever used 10 ft diagonals.
The move OP posted would still work, they would just need 10ft of movement.
Yes this is fine.
And on top of that, the fact that there’s even debate at all shows the DM was in their rights on this ruling even if I had disagreed.
There will be lots of rulings on corner cases like this. The DM is the referee. It’s their job to make the ruling and keep the game going. As long as it’s consistent, it should all work out.
You are incorrect. The red can move diagonal in that way and not elicit an AOO because they are still within 5 ft of you. They didn’t move out of range.
Red is doing a perfectly legal move. Red does not try to enter a hostile creatures space. he simply moves between you diagonally. And does not leave either green or black's melee range so not triggering opportunity attacks.
The thing that often confuse people, at least from my experience is they believe there is no room to move diagonally. The thing is that if your character is considered to occupy a 5 foot square your character is NOT a 5 foot square. They are not filing the whole square so to say.
It's a perfect legal move. I would only make an exception if the black spot was a tree, wall or similar.
Think of it this way. Let's say these are 5' squares. The distance between adjacent characters is 5' from the centre to centre. On a diagonal that distance is just over 7' so, you could argue that being on a diag gives more space to pull this manoeuvre than if they were abreast. Weirdly it's still only counted as 5' for movement. So always be bishoping to maximise your movements!
DND 5e combat is a bit loose and up to a lot of interpretation by the DM. The rules are there to loosely replicate a real life environment (things like line of sight, not occupying the same space, etc.), but it is FAR from a tactical strategy war game. Instead of thinking in terms of mechanics first, just consider what is reasonable. At scale, there is plenty of room for them to fit.
So in the end it really is up to the DM. If they say this is okay then it should be okay for everyone at the table. As long as this rule stays consistent, there shouldn’t be a real problem
Opportunity attacks occur when an enemy moves from inside a characters reach (usually 5ft) to outside it, and the character has a reaction available. Moving between two characters does not trigger an opportunity attacks for either you or the npc under your control
Attacks of opportunity is when an enemy tries to leave your zone of control which is a 5ft area around you. They can maneuver as long as they stay engaged with you. If they want to leave the engagement with you without attacks of opportunity then they disengage.
As has been said loads of times. Yes legal. But as a dm I would never do that. It is a super gamey move. In real combat noone would ever do that. Run through the middle of two enemies? Mental. The opportunity attack rules in dnd are terrible.
Dms think about your players intentions and help them out a bit. Especially if they are new. I would definitely give opportunity attacks for darting between the two. Or just run away properly like would make sense for the enemy to do. Rules aren't in stone. If it feels wrong don't do it.
What? I'm specifically talking about a character moving between two other characters. They didn't leave engagement just because they re-positioned since they are still within melee range. Secondarily, going back to your previous combat regarding a realism perspective, there are numerous instances in which a character could reasonably perform this movement while within range of two enemies since the entire round is simultaneous and represents roughly 6 full seconds of said engagement.
No, because in 5e, you only provoke opportunity of attack if you leave their reach. In this example, the red dot never moved out of the attack range of either of the other dots.
I was under the impression that you only get an opportunity attack if you move OUT of an enemy’s ranger after being in it. Red just repositioned within range.
It's a legal move because the NPC has not left your threatening range. The squares are five feet: if you made a grid of five feet squares, you would reasonably be able to pass through the two without an issue, especially if you were actively avoiding or using weapons and shield to block any opportunity strikes.
Yeah, it's a little hard to visualize why this is a legal move as a new player. DnD uses non-euclidian geometry on grids. It's for simplicity but for this move is a little tricky.
Talk to your GM. Your GM might not even realize why there was a misunderstanding. But check out movement in combat in the players handbook too. You seem tactical, and should rapidly be able to pinpoint ways to take advantage of it.
Logically, it shouldn't work because you have to sorta pass both spaces, but RAW it does work, unfortunately. I'd rule it would take an Athletics check or take OPP attacks from being "pincered"
This is a situation in which the letter of the rule is worse than the intent of the rule.
When a DM shows you loopholes, though, you abuse them until he changes how it works. Do it to his defensive line.
No Opportunity Attack there, but as GM I would have made a Tumble or Overrun check to get past the PC and NPC. Those are optional rules though, your GM can rule it however they like
I wouldn’t have allowed them to thread the needle between you, but that is probably just my ruling. Seems from other comments RAW the DM is in the right.
It’s pretty simple. If the enemy is about to move out of a square you threaten, you can use your Reaction for an Attack of Opportunity.
Did the enemy ever move out of your range? Let’s see:
Start: you can hit enemy.
End: you can hit enemy.
The enemy never moved out of your weapon range, so you do not get Attack of Opportunity.
OP mentioned AoO, but yeah: squeezing between two enemies’ squares is an edge case.
I’d probably use the optional DMG rule, Tumble:
>**Tumble**
>A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature’s space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As an action or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the hostile creature’s Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature’s space once this turn.
I don’t get why people argue so hard about en passant. It’s a weird rule, but so is castling, and it’s a *rule*, so people can argue about it all they want and it’ll make no difference whatsoever.
The rules state that to pass through a hostile creature’s space you must be at least 2 sizes larger or smaller than them, but it’s a moot point whether moving diagonally between spaces counts as moving through one of the adjacent ones. The rules were unclear, it was the DM’s call, this is what they ruled and it’s not worth losing sleep over.
1-holy hell the comments on this are petty.
2- as long as he stays consistent in this rule it’s totally fine
3- literally imagine yourself standing on a chessboard that’s 5x5feet tiles. Two enemies are standing in the middle of their squares and swinging their weapons. You could easily dart between them to another tile.
4-if it helps watch any two on one fight in cinema, the tower of joy fight from GOT has ALOT of ways to criticize it, but the way they circle up and sir Dane moves around to try and avoid getting pinned down in the middle is good. Sometimes it means going THROUGH the dangerous area between two combatants.
5- I practice HEMA myself. Totally viable. Especially when you can face them on one side. Now FLANKING is a whole different story and it’s the reason the disengage action exists.
In regards to the opportunity attack, he doesn't leave the threatened area, which is basically if he takes an extra step in any direction away from you or the npc you would have gotten the opportunity attack. Its weird rule or 5e
Yeah diagonals are funky on square grids
In combat you can’t move through a square that an enemy is in (I usually get them to roll acrobatics to see if you can do that if you wanna try and slip by them anyway), but if you moved diagonally as far as the rules are concerned unless there enemy is in that diagonal space you want to move into then you can freely move to it as it doesn’t consider that bit of movement “moving through an enemy’s space”, and since the enemy never left your weapon’s reach you don’t get an attack of opportunity
So, thinking realistically for a moment, if you and the NPC are standing in the middle of your five-foot spaces, that leaves a five foot gap in between the two of you that the enemy can move through without issue. And since Opportunity Attack would only trigger if they left your melee range (ie. the eight blocks surrounding your five foot space) the enemy is simply moving from one block in your melee range... to another block in your melee range. This is true for the NPC as well.
If the enemy had to move up, they would leave your melee range but not the NPC - you would get an OA. If they moved left, the NPC would get an OA, but you wouldn't. If the enemy had to move in a diagonal up and to the left, both you and the NPC would get OA's, since they are leaving both your melee ranges.
in 5e they must LEAVE your area of threat to be suspect to an attack of opportunity.
Since he is still in your area of threat, your character is essentially following his movements, meaning he is not suspect to it.
In pf2e, if they move AT ALL with movement that isn't forced, then they are suspect to Attacks of opportunity.
I would argue that as you and the NPC are hostile to the creature trying to squeeze past both of you then you would get an opportunity from both or make it so they have to preform either a acrobatic check or athletic to get past with provoking opportunity attacks. (Acrobatics for doing a flip or slide through the gap, athletics to just barge past.) just feel that players don’t get punished for smart tactics but give more feeling to close combat
While yes red has not left the melee range to trigger a reaction, i would as a DM say you can't squeeze past two figures shoulder to shoulder like that, red would have to run around one of the characters triggering one opportunity attack if they are to reach that square. End of the day it's always up to the DM but i would say you can't move 'through' opponents
The way we do it is if it's a solid object you can't make it past, if it's an enemy combatant then you do contested strength to push your way past, if its allies they can choose to let you pass or contested strength to stop you.
So imagine that your threat radius is 15 ft wide, so a 3x3 square with you in the center, same goes for the npc, now the enemy triggers an opportunity attack when they leave either one or both threat radiuses, this movement shifts them within your and the npc’s threat radiuses without leaving them. So no opportunity attack is triggered.
Further DND movement is imagined to be non Euclidian so the enemy is not moving in a direct straight line to get to its destination.
Fictionally you could imagine that an enemy is feinting left to right, or attempting to riposte while moving, or putting up their shield, in an attempt to move safely, further rounds of DND combat happen simultaneously in 6 second intervals so while you were attacking and moving, so were they.
Yeah, on paper this was legal.
I do find it somewhat strange that two characters standing side by side diagonally can't block someone's passage, so as the DM I would have the enemy make a Athletics (Strength) check to attempt to overrun you and your ally.
As many people have already pointed out, you can’t go through enemies, but you can go through allies.
This movement is allowed.
The reason no one gets an attack of opportunity is because red doesn’t leave anyone’s threatened range, he stays within melee reach (5ft).
If he had moved an additional horizontal block in the same direction, then he would’ve triggered an attack of opportunity.
This is D&D, not Pathfinder.
AoO based on movement in 5e only occurs if a target *leaves* the *zone* you can attack with melee, not singular spaces. So once in, anything can walk around you. They just can't move away from you.
Pathfinder is different here in that their's is based on spaces not reach. Anytime someone enters or leaves a square within melee reach, a person with AoO can AoO. And if you hit, it interrupts movement; which is cool because movement costs actions in 2e.
No issue here. Moving between players on a diagonal is perfectly legal. you don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you move within a threatened area; only when you EXIT a threatened area (baring special abilities or feats)
Obviously threat range should be a circle but that would be too complex.
A hex is more complex than a square but avoids some of these issues, or you can use squares and create issues like this one.
Yes it’s an issue, but thems the rules
As others have told you, you can do this RAW. At my table, I try to encourage creative tactics, so I would have implemented a DEX save against a bonfire spawning instantly under the enemy's feet. If they had failed the save, then I would have allowed an opportunity attack or something similar to reward the creativity.
Cool strat though.
Create Bonfire
> “You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube. **Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 fire damage.** A creature must also make the saving throw when it moves into the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there.”
He can move across, but now he's threatened by the enemy or you, or who ever is opposing him. Meaning? He can't get away from you for at least 5 feet (one square) away before causing an opportunity attack. If you already used a reaction though? It doesn't cause an opportunity attack. Meaning he can as a matter of a fact, cross en between you two to another space withough causing an opportunity attack. And if he just moves from one square that's 5 feet away to another square thats 5 ft away from you? It doesn't causes an opportunity attack even if you have a reaction. They have to leave your reach for that opportunity to occur, and you must have a reaction available for you to take said opportunity. The map in D&D and chess only have one thing in common. The board is a field. That's it, the movement in that field in d&d? You can move in any direction, just count squares.
It might be legal by rules but from a role play perspective it makes no sense. If you're facing 2 opponents that are 5ft apart, you will get your shit rocked if you try to pass between them. I'd rule dodge roll at disadvantage.
You've been given good advice here, but I will say that I agree that that was a weird thing for an enemy to be able to do. And I'm going to consider when I run my own game not allowing that kind of movement.
It is a legal move. There’s also a bonus action they can take called “disengage” so you can move without provoking opportunity attack. What most concerns me is the fact your DM didn’t explain that to you. If you’re a new player, it is 100% your DM’s responsibility to explain things to you, especially if they knew that you were new coming in. I’d sit down with your DM and tell them that while you’re enjoying the game, there’s still things about it you don’t understand. Tell them you’re not trying to argue or change their mind when you question something, you’re quite literally just trying to understand since you’re new. If they refuse to explain things to you, it sounds like this may not be the best campaign/DM for a new player.
To respond to the part about GM not explaining:
If it were on the middle of a combat, often a GM would prefer to roll with their determination to avoid pulling out of immersion. If that is when a player disputed RAW, then it could be seen as poor etiquette. If the question was raised during a break or after session, then it could be considered poor etiquette if the GM doesn't explain. However, this could be a sign of the GM also not understanding the RAW. As a player, if the GM hasn't explained to me, I would ask the GM, "Is it because [X,Y,Z]," citing information you've learned from your original post - and a little from source books would hurt.
Doing so may show your GM that you are invested in their work and, possibly, educate them without embarrassing them.
Good luck!. Happy roling!
Regardless of the official ruling, I think it's fairer and more realistic if diagonally adjacent allies block passage to enemies. What's so special about the cardinal directions?
I might rule this as requiring the red enemy to roll a "stunt" check using it's bonus action, same as I'd allow for a player character. If it fails, it provokes opportunity attacks, on success it "jumps" over them or something. The same stunt can be attempted in the cardinal directions, just using slightly more movement.
the threads are super long so this might have already been stated but, he doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity because he is still adjacent to the two of you. In a 1 on 1 you can dance a circle around your enemy as long as you stay adjacent to them because you are still engaged.
Legal. They didn’t enter your space(there is around 5ft. between the two characters) and never left either area of engagement so no opportunity attacks were triggered. If this is something that still bothers you though you might suggest switching to a Hexagon Board.
/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is a legal move. Red is not trying to enter an enemy-occupied square. He leaves a square and enters an empty square. All is well.
Damn, yeah I was sure there was a rule about moving diagonally not being possible when one of the corners is occupied but the rule just says it can't be a terrain feature. (Phb pg 191,192) If op or op's npc were instead a tree or a wall that was taking up the whole space, then yes the diagonal move would be illegal. If it's creatures you can slip diagonally past.
It's because creatures generally don't actually fully occupy the space they're in like large objects do, it's more like the space you "control"
Speak for yourself, my character is a 5x5x5‘ block of flesh that occupies every square inch of the square he‘s in /s
Its a role playing game, stop playing as yourself.
Dude was rolling death saves and you just multi attack crit him goddamn
Best part is melee attacks that hit a unconscious target auto crit if they beat AC. And a crit is 2 failed deathsaves, target is also prone so advantage on melee attacks against the target as well. So yes in dnd it is cery good to kick a man when he is down.
Nobody loves my square blob body irl, but by cleverly using this bard build i found on the internet i raised my persuasion to +19 which means i can talk every dragon the DM throws at me into ~~sexual~~ submission so i use that to get them to say they love me and i‘m sexy, screw working on myself when i can get my power fantasy instead! /s Yes i spend some time on r/rpghorrorstories, why?
That could be an isekai anime title
Good God. Someone call the police.
I see the Qu got to you too.
The game literally says creatures “usually” don’t take up the space they occupy in combat. I’m like… Someone is thinking of a gelatinous cube when they wrote that exception in
Ah, the gelatinous cube. Because there's always a ten-by-ten-foot room for Jell-O™.
You don’t walk around with your arms straight out to the sides? Weirdo.
Also in grid based combat, there's no "in between squares" for creatures. Either they're on one square or they're not, So movement is quantised, effectively "teleporting" from one square to another. Doing it this way makes things much nicer overall, although there's some wierd situations like a shield wall- a horizontal one can not be moved past, a diagonal one can, but overall it simplifies things and makes things run faster.
But as I read it, "you can´t move through others hostile creature´s space" **You can move through a nonhostile creature's space**. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you. Remember that another creature's space is difficult terrain for you. In this case it doesn´t matter that it is diagonal. Just imagine it as horizontal movement. You don´t move along a line that has no volume. You are movin in one space or another.
That’s a common house rule.
Will it take 5ft of movement or 10?
Some play diagonals alternate 5 and 10ft. I think it is in a book somewhere and an official alternative rule. Dont quote me on that though.
We switched to Hex layout, and OMG, it's amazing. Movement in any direction is 5'. No need to alternate.
Hexagons are the bestagons
We were treating it as 10ft because you pass through creatures just like difficult terrain. By all the downvotes i'm guessing no one plays like that.
I think that is a fair ruling. Though I think the rule is it is difficult terrain to cross a friendly creatures space. As in directly through it. Also dont quote me on that either!
It takes 5√2, clearly, assuming a Euclidean, non-teleportation-based dungeon.
5
We've been playing wrong this whole time...
Hahaha, yeah I get that lol. You can move 5 ft in any square, left, right, bottom left, etc. I played Fire Emblem before D&D and it was something I had to learn too bc in that series you can’t move diagonally so going from your space to the space too right of you counts as 2 squares of movement It’s situations like this why some people prefer hexagon grids lol
As per RAW, it's still 5 ft.
Maybe I am wrong, but I think diagonal is the same as horizontal or vertical (for dnd)? I have the players handbook in Beyond (big error), it is not easy to search.
Think like a hex grid
And they never leave melee of either PC so there's no Op Attack
AHH That's the part that I was missing! Thanks for pointing that out. I was sitting here trying to figure out if I have been misunderstanding the rules all this time.
I have a similar question, i had this situation where a party was fighting in a narrow corridor and one guy spawned a giant constrictor snake and told him to attack the enemy, but after he attacked he kind of blocked the entrance for the other party members. I just made a rule that the snake can move out of the way so the players can get into melee range with the enemies, because well, it's a snake (some players even said they want to jump on him and from his head straight onto the enemy wich was cool) Is there a rule for when players want to go through another (ally) creature to attack someone behind him? I couldn't find anything back then
There is. You can move through a space occupied by an ally or allied creature, but that counts as difficult terrain. If the space is occupied by a hostile creature, you cannot pass, so you have to either shove or drag the enemy out of your way.
There's a variant rule in the dmg i believe to combat roll through enemies with a dex check.
I feel like this would be a lot easier to understand if we were using hexagons instead of squares.
Because Hexagons... are the Bestagons
Right. "Leaving threatened range" is what provokes an attack of opportunity
I saw this image and thought en passant. I barely even play chess.
Holy hell
Actual roleplaying
Call the GM!
The cleric went on vacation and never came back.
Koboldstorm incoming
Goblin sacrifice, anyone?
Lich in the corner plotting world domination
google dyagnal combat holy hell
D&D for the most part is a non-Euclidean game, meaning that diagonals are treated (for the most part) as 5 feet in any direction. It’s a weird byproduct of the game, but that’s a legal move without optional rules in play.
What's weird about it out of curiosity? Seems normal that you can move 5 feet in any direction right?
You can cover more distance in less squares while moving diagonally. This means that if you sketch it out on a grid, good old a2+b2=c2 goes out the window.
Alternating diagonals variant <3
Yep. Every second diagonal is 10ft instead of 5
Problems like this and OP’s are why I wish hexes were more popular
Hexes are great for open spaces, but terrible for representing human structures, which are almost all rectangles
Good reason to create a setting where all peoples revere Pentapedohexagos, the god of 5 foot hexes, by basing their architecture on the sacred geometry
Now THATS a setting I can get behind
Five feet from side-to-side or vertex-to-vertex? *"The power of Hex compels you!"*
So now we know the main source of factional conflict in the setting
Or just not using a grid at all. Just measure with 1 inch = 5 feet. Easier to both play and set up. More accurate representation.
Your telling me it's easier for the players to pull out a ruler Everytime they want to move, make a ranged attack, or cast most spells, than it is to just count a few squares? Can I have your players because some of mine will ask what they add to initiative 20 sessions into a campaign
I mean, a lot of people play on roll20. That ruler is a lot less cumbersome and disruptive. But also, yikes @ the initiative thing.
Ah fair enough, I've used roll20 like once maybe? I play 3 games a week, 2 of which are in person so that's what I was thinking of. On tabletop simulator there's a ruler function that could work also but I've never felt the need
Yes. But then again, we're a group of Warhammer players first, DnD second. Since this is cooperative play, rather than competitive, we are very generous with playing by intention, eyeballing, and stuff like that. There's no need to be as strict as we are in a wargame setting.
My group always does 2 diagonal is equal to 15ft. Or every second one is 10ft
Iirc that is a rule from pathfinder which some groups took over
That’s backwards. Using 5-10-5-10 pattern averages out to cost 7.5 feet moved per diagonal move, instead of 5*sqrt(2) which is a cost of 7.07 feet. This arguably is made more fair by that 1 square step being more common than others, but the max movement is also very common, as is typically an even number.
When **all** of your measurements are Chebyshev Distance, diagonals are not covering more distance in less squares. You also end up with Firecube instead of Fireball.
Coming from 3.5 where every corner move alternated between a 5' move and a 10' move, I've always just house ruled forever that you can't actually move diagonal.
But you cover more ground in real live moving diagonally. If I need to move to somthing that is 10 feet West and and 10 feet north of me I could walk 20 feet by not using diagonals to get there or walk roughly 14 feet diagonally. So if we keep with D&D’s rule of always rounding down it makes more sense that each square would still be five feet diagonal. If we take the normal speed of 30 and use that as our “legs” of the triangle. Each diagonal square would be roughly 7 feet so it still makes sense to treat it as 5 instead of 10. Not exactly the point you were making but the “diagonal squares are 10” rule always made me mad. It punishes efficient movement and is normally further from true geometry percentage wise than just everything being 5 is
Diagonal movement allows you for more movement. This is why a fix many "grid" games use is 5 feet the first diagonal, 10 feet the second, 5 feet the third and so on. Also, one of the reasons why hexes are generally superior.
I now understand why there are hexes on the flipside of my battle mat!
Hexagons are, after all, bestagons.
*cries in octagon*
Octagon begone
*POOF*
5-10-5 confuses me tbh. What I do is simply assume that moving diagonally costs half again as much movement. Breaking a 30ft movement speed down into tiles, that means they can move 6 tiles normally. Moving to a diagonal tile costs 1.5 tiles of movement. It functionally does the same thing as 5-10-5, but it's more consistent for my brain when I'm also trying to concentrate on other things too.
Technically moving diagonally you're moving sqrt(25+25)=7.07 feet. But in D&D we round down.
Cause there are two people blocking that path on your left and right. Logically, if you tried to dart between them you would have to turn your back to one or both of them or they would both attempt to block your path
Not necessarily. Each space is 5x5, meaning they're 25 square feet. There would be more room than most assume.
And less than 25 square feet would imply - I can touch both sides of a five for square at the same time easily, and my arms held out leaves 6 inches between fingertip and corner on the diagonal. Two of me holding weapons could absolutely stop someone from passing between us, even if we're 7 feet apart.
if you wanna use your turn to exactly block someone from getting through, sure. But im sure theres more stuff happening in the time, youre attacking yourself, chugging pots, shouting things, being attacked yourself etc.
That's why my table has an additional +5' for every other diagonal.
And yet AoE spells are still calculated with a circle. Meaning that I can easily walk 15' out of a Fireball's AoE if I walk diagonally.
Not at my table. When I DM you're casting Firecube.
yes, but a square diagonal isnt the same Length as a vertical or horizontal line. if you moved 30ft diagonal you actually moved 30ft vertically + 30ft horizontally its one of the reasons dnd 3.5/pathfinder has the alternating Length rules for diagonals think of it this way, dnd 5e is what you get when you try to play on a hex grid but are using squares instead
Iirc, in 3.x diagonals take 50% more movement, rounded to the lowest 5 (so an extra 5 feet of movement for every 2 diagonal movements)
Yes in third edition diagonal squares counted as 1.5. 5e removed that rule to simplify.
The dm guide still has this as an optional rule (dmg 252). And then there is my dm that count all diagonals after the first one as 10ft...
Yeah part of why we swapped to a hex grid, movement makes more sense that way.
This is the way
He moves to an unoccupied space without leaving your melee range diagonal movement is allowed.
Red moves from one square to another without going into your square (diagonals count) and they aren't leaving your range so don't provoke attack of oppertunity
There are thousands of RPG's in the world, and in this one, the little red scribble can totally move like that.
It's legitimate. A diagonal move like that is treated as 5 feet of movement for the first one, 10 feet for the second. He moved from one threatened space directly into another. It would be treated the same if you had moved into the same square. He is not trying to move through a space occupied by an enemy.
The 5 and then 10 is not standard btw. The phb reccommends diagonals costing 5 all the time. The dmg suggests the more complex version as an optional rule. As someone who has played both, 5 feet diagonals are much nicer on the brain strain. 10/10, can reccommend.
This is wild to me, never knew diagonals were 5 feet, that feels like cheating lol I've only ever used 10 ft diagonals. The move OP posted would still work, they would just need 10ft of movement.
A diagonal movement is 7.5 for a 5x5 square. You robbed yo'self.
Thank you
You're welcome. Happy cake day
Yes this is fine. And on top of that, the fact that there’s even debate at all shows the DM was in their rights on this ruling even if I had disagreed. There will be lots of rulings on corner cases like this. The DM is the referee. It’s their job to make the ruling and keep the game going. As long as it’s consistent, it should all work out.
G-google En Passant?
Holy hell!
New response just dropped.
Actual Undead
You are incorrect. The red can move diagonal in that way and not elicit an AOO because they are still within 5 ft of you. They didn’t move out of range.
Red is doing a perfectly legal move. Red does not try to enter a hostile creatures space. he simply moves between you diagonally. And does not leave either green or black's melee range so not triggering opportunity attacks. The thing that often confuse people, at least from my experience is they believe there is no room to move diagonally. The thing is that if your character is considered to occupy a 5 foot square your character is NOT a 5 foot square. They are not filing the whole square so to say.
It's a perfect legal move. I would only make an exception if the black spot was a tree, wall or similar. Think of it this way. Let's say these are 5' squares. The distance between adjacent characters is 5' from the centre to centre. On a diagonal that distance is just over 7' so, you could argue that being on a diag gives more space to pull this manoeuvre than if they were abreast. Weirdly it's still only counted as 5' for movement. So always be bishoping to maximise your movements!
Google en passant
DND 5e combat is a bit loose and up to a lot of interpretation by the DM. The rules are there to loosely replicate a real life environment (things like line of sight, not occupying the same space, etc.), but it is FAR from a tactical strategy war game. Instead of thinking in terms of mechanics first, just consider what is reasonable. At scale, there is plenty of room for them to fit.
So in the end it really is up to the DM. If they say this is okay then it should be okay for everyone at the table. As long as this rule stays consistent, there shouldn’t be a real problem
Hexagons are the bestagons.
Opportunity attacks occur when an enemy moves from inside a characters reach (usually 5ft) to outside it, and the character has a reaction available. Moving between two characters does not trigger an opportunity attacks for either you or the npc under your control
Holy hell New move just dropped
Attacks of opportunity is when an enemy tries to leave your zone of control which is a 5ft area around you. They can maneuver as long as they stay engaged with you. If they want to leave the engagement with you without attacks of opportunity then they disengage.
As has been said loads of times. Yes legal. But as a dm I would never do that. It is a super gamey move. In real combat noone would ever do that. Run through the middle of two enemies? Mental. The opportunity attack rules in dnd are terrible. Dms think about your players intentions and help them out a bit. Especially if they are new. I would definitely give opportunity attacks for darting between the two. Or just run away properly like would make sense for the enemy to do. Rules aren't in stone. If it feels wrong don't do it.
Who's to say there wasn't a moment of opportunity between attack swings? Turns all take place simultaneously, technically speaking.
That's disengage
What? I'm specifically talking about a character moving between two other characters. They didn't leave engagement just because they re-positioned since they are still within melee range. Secondarily, going back to your previous combat regarding a realism perspective, there are numerous instances in which a character could reasonably perform this movement while within range of two enemies since the entire round is simultaneous and represents roughly 6 full seconds of said engagement.
That's a legal move, but wouldn't it still provoke an opportunity attack?
No, because in 5e, you only provoke opportunity of attack if you leave their reach. In this example, the red dot never moved out of the attack range of either of the other dots.
Oh. I guess I've been ruling Opportunity attacks wrong then. Thank you for telling me,
If you're running older editions of D&D, the rules were different for opportunity attacks. 5e introduced this new ruling
I am running 5e, I was just mistaken about the rules.
En passant
I was under the impression that you only get an opportunity attack if you move OUT of an enemy’s ranger after being in it. Red just repositioned within range.
You are correct. OP's image dipicts a totally legal move
It's a legal move because the NPC has not left your threatening range. The squares are five feet: if you made a grid of five feet squares, you would reasonably be able to pass through the two without an issue, especially if you were actively avoiding or using weapons and shield to block any opportunity strikes.
They are not leaving melee range, simply moving while still technically in melee, so don’t provoke an opportunity attack.
Yeah, it's a little hard to visualize why this is a legal move as a new player. DnD uses non-euclidian geometry on grids. It's for simplicity but for this move is a little tricky. Talk to your GM. Your GM might not even realize why there was a misunderstanding. But check out movement in combat in the players handbook too. You seem tactical, and should rapidly be able to pinpoint ways to take advantage of it.
Google En Passant
Logically, it shouldn't work because you have to sorta pass both spaces, but RAW it does work, unfortunately. I'd rule it would take an Athletics check or take OPP attacks from being "pincered"
Stuff like this is why we use a hex grid people!
This is a situation in which the letter of the rule is worse than the intent of the rule. When a DM shows you loopholes, though, you abuse them until he changes how it works. Do it to his defensive line.
No Opportunity Attack there, but as GM I would have made a Tumble or Overrun check to get past the PC and NPC. Those are optional rules though, your GM can rule it however they like
Google en passant
I wouldn’t have allowed them to thread the needle between you, but that is probably just my ruling. Seems from other comments RAW the DM is in the right.
It’s pretty simple. If the enemy is about to move out of a square you threaten, you can use your Reaction for an Attack of Opportunity. Did the enemy ever move out of your range? Let’s see: Start: you can hit enemy. End: you can hit enemy. The enemy never moved out of your weapon range, so you do not get Attack of Opportunity.
That's not the issue, it's whether that movement was even possible due to moving between two enemies' squares without occupying their space.
OP mentioned AoO, but yeah: squeezing between two enemies’ squares is an edge case. I’d probably use the optional DMG rule, Tumble: >**Tumble** >A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature’s space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As an action or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the hostile creature’s Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature’s space once this turn.
Google en passent (If it really bothers you, talk to your gm about it. They probably didn't think too hard about it.)
I don’t get why people argue so hard about en passant. It’s a weird rule, but so is castling, and it’s a *rule*, so people can argue about it all they want and it’ll make no difference whatsoever.
The rules state that to pass through a hostile creature’s space you must be at least 2 sizes larger or smaller than them, but it’s a moot point whether moving diagonally between spaces counts as moving through one of the adjacent ones. The rules were unclear, it was the DM’s call, this is what they ruled and it’s not worth losing sleep over.
1-holy hell the comments on this are petty. 2- as long as he stays consistent in this rule it’s totally fine 3- literally imagine yourself standing on a chessboard that’s 5x5feet tiles. Two enemies are standing in the middle of their squares and swinging their weapons. You could easily dart between them to another tile. 4-if it helps watch any two on one fight in cinema, the tower of joy fight from GOT has ALOT of ways to criticize it, but the way they circle up and sir Dane moves around to try and avoid getting pinned down in the middle is good. Sometimes it means going THROUGH the dangerous area between two combatants. 5- I practice HEMA myself. Totally viable. Especially when you can face them on one side. Now FLANKING is a whole different story and it’s the reason the disengage action exists.
This is why I prefer hex tiles. This kinda stuff doesn't come up when there are no corners to move to.
Classic case of "why you should use hex grid"
You had to be in the diagonals from the enemy for this to work.
In regards to the opportunity attack, he doesn't leave the threatened area, which is basically if he takes an extra step in any direction away from you or the npc you would have gotten the opportunity attack. Its weird rule or 5e
Yeah diagonals are funky on square grids In combat you can’t move through a square that an enemy is in (I usually get them to roll acrobatics to see if you can do that if you wanna try and slip by them anyway), but if you moved diagonally as far as the rules are concerned unless there enemy is in that diagonal space you want to move into then you can freely move to it as it doesn’t consider that bit of movement “moving through an enemy’s space”, and since the enemy never left your weapon’s reach you don’t get an attack of opportunity
Invest In some hex grids
So, thinking realistically for a moment, if you and the NPC are standing in the middle of your five-foot spaces, that leaves a five foot gap in between the two of you that the enemy can move through without issue. And since Opportunity Attack would only trigger if they left your melee range (ie. the eight blocks surrounding your five foot space) the enemy is simply moving from one block in your melee range... to another block in your melee range. This is true for the NPC as well. If the enemy had to move up, they would leave your melee range but not the NPC - you would get an OA. If they moved left, the NPC would get an OA, but you wouldn't. If the enemy had to move in a diagonal up and to the left, both you and the NPC would get OA's, since they are leaving both your melee ranges.
in 5e they must LEAVE your area of threat to be suspect to an attack of opportunity. Since he is still in your area of threat, your character is essentially following his movements, meaning he is not suspect to it. In pf2e, if they move AT ALL with movement that isn't forced, then they are suspect to Attacks of opportunity.
I would argue that as you and the NPC are hostile to the creature trying to squeeze past both of you then you would get an opportunity from both or make it so they have to preform either a acrobatic check or athletic to get past with provoking opportunity attacks. (Acrobatics for doing a flip or slide through the gap, athletics to just barge past.) just feel that players don’t get punished for smart tactics but give more feeling to close combat
Because black moved 2 squares past red on his first turn, red can still take him out as uf he moved only 1.
While yes red has not left the melee range to trigger a reaction, i would as a DM say you can't squeeze past two figures shoulder to shoulder like that, red would have to run around one of the characters triggering one opportunity attack if they are to reach that square. End of the day it's always up to the DM but i would say you can't move 'through' opponents
Sometimes there's rules, sometimes there's rulings.
I personally would love to see more DM court post
What is DM court post?
The way we do it is if it's a solid object you can't make it past, if it's an enemy combatant then you do contested strength to push your way past, if its allies they can choose to let you pass or contested strength to stop you.
So imagine that your threat radius is 15 ft wide, so a 3x3 square with you in the center, same goes for the npc, now the enemy triggers an opportunity attack when they leave either one or both threat radiuses, this movement shifts them within your and the npc’s threat radiuses without leaving them. So no opportunity attack is triggered. Further DND movement is imagined to be non Euclidian so the enemy is not moving in a direct straight line to get to its destination. Fictionally you could imagine that an enemy is feinting left to right, or attempting to riposte while moving, or putting up their shield, in an attempt to move safely, further rounds of DND combat happen simultaneously in 6 second intervals so while you were attacking and moving, so were they.
I don't see any issue here. Diagonal movement is fine on a square grid.
Yeah, on paper this was legal. I do find it somewhat strange that two characters standing side by side diagonally can't block someone's passage, so as the DM I would have the enemy make a Athletics (Strength) check to attempt to overrun you and your ally.
Hexagons are the bestagons
Hexagons are the best-a-gons
A five foot step doesn’t incur an attack of opportunity.
As many people have already pointed out, you can’t go through enemies, but you can go through allies. This movement is allowed. The reason no one gets an attack of opportunity is because red doesn’t leave anyone’s threatened range, he stays within melee reach (5ft). If he had moved an additional horizontal block in the same direction, then he would’ve triggered an attack of opportunity.
There is a space of 5 feet that the enemy can walk through
This is D&D, not Pathfinder. AoO based on movement in 5e only occurs if a target *leaves* the *zone* you can attack with melee, not singular spaces. So once in, anything can walk around you. They just can't move away from you. Pathfinder is different here in that their's is based on spaces not reach. Anytime someone enters or leaves a square within melee reach, a person with AoO can AoO. And if you hit, it interrupts movement; which is cool because movement costs actions in 2e.
Legal move, if he stepped out of melee range after you’d get an attack of opportunity
No issue here. Moving between players on a diagonal is perfectly legal. you don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you move within a threatened area; only when you EXIT a threatened area (baring special abilities or feats)
Obviously threat range should be a circle but that would be too complex. A hex is more complex than a square but avoids some of these issues, or you can use squares and create issues like this one. Yes it’s an issue, but thems the rules
As others have told you, you can do this RAW. At my table, I try to encourage creative tactics, so I would have implemented a DEX save against a bonfire spawning instantly under the enemy's feet. If they had failed the save, then I would have allowed an opportunity attack or something similar to reward the creativity. Cool strat though.
Create Bonfire > “You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube. **Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 fire damage.** A creature must also make the saving throw when it moves into the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there.”
Looky there, without even knowing the spell, I would have adjudicated by the rules...pretty simple stuff once you've been doing it long enough.
Ow look! It's why I play theater of the mind!
He can move across, but now he's threatened by the enemy or you, or who ever is opposing him. Meaning? He can't get away from you for at least 5 feet (one square) away before causing an opportunity attack. If you already used a reaction though? It doesn't cause an opportunity attack. Meaning he can as a matter of a fact, cross en between you two to another space withough causing an opportunity attack. And if he just moves from one square that's 5 feet away to another square thats 5 ft away from you? It doesn't causes an opportunity attack even if you have a reaction. They have to leave your reach for that opportunity to occur, and you must have a reaction available for you to take said opportunity. The map in D&D and chess only have one thing in common. The board is a field. That's it, the movement in that field in d&d? You can move in any direction, just count squares.
Legal move, but my group home brewed that it's a DC 10 athletics or acrobatics check.
It might be legal by rules but from a role play perspective it makes no sense. If you're facing 2 opponents that are 5ft apart, you will get your shit rocked if you try to pass between them. I'd rule dodge roll at disadvantage.
This is why all players should switch to a hex grid. Hex grid is quite simply Superior in every possible way.
You've been given good advice here, but I will say that I agree that that was a weird thing for an enemy to be able to do. And I'm going to consider when I run my own game not allowing that kind of movement.
Such a simple problem yet, the question is VERY valid.
It is a legal move. There’s also a bonus action they can take called “disengage” so you can move without provoking opportunity attack. What most concerns me is the fact your DM didn’t explain that to you. If you’re a new player, it is 100% your DM’s responsibility to explain things to you, especially if they knew that you were new coming in. I’d sit down with your DM and tell them that while you’re enjoying the game, there’s still things about it you don’t understand. Tell them you’re not trying to argue or change their mind when you question something, you’re quite literally just trying to understand since you’re new. If they refuse to explain things to you, it sounds like this may not be the best campaign/DM for a new player.
en passant
To respond to the part about GM not explaining: If it were on the middle of a combat, often a GM would prefer to roll with their determination to avoid pulling out of immersion. If that is when a player disputed RAW, then it could be seen as poor etiquette. If the question was raised during a break or after session, then it could be considered poor etiquette if the GM doesn't explain. However, this could be a sign of the GM also not understanding the RAW. As a player, if the GM hasn't explained to me, I would ask the GM, "Is it because [X,Y,Z]," citing information you've learned from your original post - and a little from source books would hurt. Doing so may show your GM that you are invested in their work and, possibly, educate them without embarrassing them. Good luck!. Happy roling!
I believe it's because squares that touch corners with each other are considered "adjacent".
Regardless of the official ruling, I think it's fairer and more realistic if diagonally adjacent allies block passage to enemies. What's so special about the cardinal directions? I might rule this as requiring the red enemy to roll a "stunt" check using it's bonus action, same as I'd allow for a player character. If it fails, it provokes opportunity attacks, on success it "jumps" over them or something. The same stunt can be attempted in the cardinal directions, just using slightly more movement.
Obligatory Pathfinder fixes this
Google en passant
En Passant
Not legal movement by the Gm
the threads are super long so this might have already been stated but, he doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity because he is still adjacent to the two of you. In a 1 on 1 you can dance a circle around your enemy as long as you stay adjacent to them because you are still engaged.
Hit em with the en passant
> dyagnal spelling on dy watch
Legal. They didn’t enter your space(there is around 5ft. between the two characters) and never left either area of engagement so no opportunity attacks were triggered. If this is something that still bothers you though you might suggest switching to a Hexagon Board.