9
\$\begingroup\$

This came up in my last game and I was unsure of the answer so I made a quick ruling based on what made sense at the moment, and today after going through the rules I'm still unsure what would be the official answer.

Are the movements in the following scenarios possible without the need to Tumble Through? My common sense says no, but I couldn't find anything in the rules to confirm this, and I'm starting to think the RAW answer may be yes.

The first conflictive scenario is this:

Two enemies

And the second is this:

One enemy and a wall corner

Players are blue, enemies red, walls black.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The images or links failed. Could you edit to include them? \$\endgroup\$ – DLynch Apr 21 at 15:45
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @DLynch Weird, I could see them fine both in my computer and smartphone, I just reuploaded them using the stack option to upload images, I hope you can see them now. \$\endgroup\$ – Yopi Lapi Apr 21 at 16:18
4
\$\begingroup\$

First Scenario: no need to Tumble Through

The Moving Through A Creature's Space rules don't apply to this scenario; you are not moving through the space of either enemy creature. You are moving diagonally, so you'd count the distance according to the Grid Movement rules, which you are doing just fine in the image.

Second Scenario: Unclear

As far as I can see, the Encounter Mode rules do not specifically discuss this scenario (where some sort of impassable terrain encompasses the whole square). This would fall under GM discretion, then. I believe in some other similar systems, the general rule of thumb was that you could not move diagonally through a corner like that (I believe, for example, that was the case with Star Wars Saga Edition), but the Pathfinder 2 rules say nothing on the subject.

\$\endgroup\$
8
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ There is no evaluation of tokens "between squares" that I can see in the PF2e rules. Indeed, if the movement in figure 1 required a tumble through, then the movement in figure 2 (even without the wall in the way) would also require a tumble through! There doesn't seem to be any mention of moving diagonally around an enemy being restricted or requiring a tumble through, so it stands to reason no such roll would be required for figure 1. It may help to remember that the 5ft space a creature takes is an abstraction; there's plenty of room for an average human to walk between two others in fig 1. \$\endgroup\$ – ESCE Apr 21 at 18:36
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I believe Pathfinder 1e had rules restricting this type of movement that may have been intentionally or accidentally dropped, so I'd expect table variance especially if the group is coming from a 1e background. \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Apr 21 at 19:39
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Ruling that movement isn't blocked certainly ups the "power" of moving diagonally. \$\endgroup\$ – Jason_c_o Apr 21 at 19:49
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Jason_c_o my table plays it this way, it's fairly rare the situation ever comes up (we have 2 melee characters and 1 half-time melee character), so while it does make it more powerful in that particular niche instance in my experience it's rare enough to not unbalance things. \$\endgroup\$ – ESCE Apr 21 at 20:12
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Ifusaso personally for tactical reason I'm going with the Pathfinder 1e ruling. First scenario you don't need to tumble through, in the second scenario you need to tumble through \$\endgroup\$ – Mouza May 4 at 8:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.