As everyone keeps saying, you can not end your turn in some one else's space. This is raw.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON.
The original poster is not talking about ending your turn in someone elses space. He is having someone move into an ally's space, attack, then move out, all in the same turn.
This is legal, as per RAW.
Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space.
Not turn, move. So you cannot stop moving to attack inside another creature's space.
While this is a true quote of the rules, you have totally misunderstood how the game works. You are 100% wrong here. Among other things, you do not have to actually stop moving ever. Creatures that are flying do not stop their movement, they move from the beginning of their turn, to the end of their turn, during other people's turn, etc. etc. They do not stop flying until they decide to stop flying. Same with me running. I do not run, stop and wait for everyone to do what they want, then start running again on my turn.
The turn system is a construct built to simplify the game, and movement is not a Move action. The turn system gives me constraints on what I can do in 6 seconds, but it all happens simultaneously. It gives me a Bonus Action, Move Action, regular Action and a Reaction. But your Move is over only when you have used up all your 'speed', actually happens exactly when your turn ends, and has nothing do with me stopping movement. If I have a walking speed of 35, then my 'move' does not end until I have moved 35 ft. If my swim speed is 15, then I only end my move when I have swum 15.
Basically, you get to fire your attack in the middle of your move, not before, after, nor do you end your movement while you are attacking.
If you read the PHB, you will see the following quotes:
In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion,
...
You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet
...
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.
...
However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
For this reason, your insistence about 'move' ending is irrelevant because the move does not end merely because my body is currently occupying the same location that an ally is in. I still have 5 ft of movement left, so while my other actions may occur when I in a specific spot, I have not ended my movement at that spot. It only ends when I use the last of my speed, which of course happens after I leave the space my ally is in (or if someone restrains me, which ends my movement unwilling).
Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space.
Not turn, move. So you cannot stop moving to attack inside another creature's space.
"End your move" and "stop moving" are not necessarily the same thing.
When I read that "end your move" to me means finish your move for the turn. Stop moving is different. If I have a 30 foot move, I can move 5 feet attack once, move 5 feet, attack again and I have attacked twice and not "ended my move" I still have another 20 foot movement left. I can move another 5 feet, then jump 5 feet, then drop prone, then cast a bonus action spell, then crawl 5 feet and only at this point have ended my move.
Movng doesn't end strictly when you run out of mouvement speed, nor are you in constant movement from the begining to the end of your turn. You start and end moving when you do something else other than moving. That way you move between actions and between attacks if an action contain more than 1 weapon attack. The rules don't say you move during action or attacks but between them.
As everyone keeps saying, you can not end your turn in some one else's space. This is raw.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON.
The original poster is not talking about ending your turn in someone elses space. He is having someone move into an ally's space, attack, then move out, all in the same turn.
This is legal, as per RAW.
Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space.
Not turn, move. So you cannot stop moving to attack inside another creature's space.
If that is taken as an absolute, how does melee work, exactly? You swing at the air at least 5' from your opponent and if you strike the air effectively enough it somehow wounds your opponent?
Attacking your opponent doesn't require you to move into their space. If you're playing on a grid, the square you're in represents the space you command, which simply put means the space in which you do things while you're not moving from one square to the next. If you take the attack action to stab at an enemy in an adjacent square, you can imagine your character stepping to the edge of its square to stab at the opponent at an opportune moment when the opponent is at the edge of its own square closest to you. The distance between the closest border of two adjacent squares is 0 feet, if you think about it from a mathematical perspective.
Remember that the rules we discuss are game mechanics that come at the cost of realism. It is true that the rules regarding movement could be a bit clearer (especially the usage of "movement" vs "your move" and whether or not the latter is considered a game term), but personally I believe the game makes sense when the rules are interpreted to mean that a move is ended when you do something other than moving, or when your turn ends, which also seems to be RAI. However this doesn't mean you have to narrate the story in a janky fashion as if the characters are 8-bit people moving only in straight lines in a 2D world.
Movng doesn't end strictly when you run out of mouvement speed, nor are you in constant movement from the begining to the end of your turn. You start and end moving when you do something else other than moving. That way you move between actions and between attacks if an action contain more than 1 weapon attack. The rules don't say you move during action or attacks but between them.
Be that as it may, you can move, take an action, then if you still have movement, move again. Otherwise the Mobility Feat and similar abilities lose a LOT of utility. Rather defeats the purpose of them.
Yes you can move between action as i said, which include before and after one..
The argument seems to come down to a disagreement over what constitutes ending your move. If taking an action in the middle of your move means you have (temporarily?) ended your move to take the action, then that should apply to attack as well as taking the dash action, which seems pretty relevant considering moving through another creature's space is difficult terrain.
Now I'm wondering what happens if you end your move in another creature's space, but not willingly.
Could you both stick around and attack from that space then?
Once you regain control over your movement, not immediately leaving the occupied space I feel would constitute "willingly ending your move in another creature's space."
As everyone keeps saying, you can not end your turn in some one else's space. This is raw.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON.
The original poster is not talking about ending your turn in someone elses space. He is having someone move into an ally's space, attack, then move out, all in the same turn.
This is legal, as per RAW.
Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space.
Not turn, move. So you cannot stop moving to attack inside another creature's space.
If that is taken as an absolute, how does melee work, exactly? You swing at the air at least 5' from your opponent and if you strike the air effectively enough it somehow wounds your opponent?
Attacking your opponent doesn't require you to move into their space. If you're playing on a grid, the square you're in represents the space you command, which simply put means the space in which you do things while you're not moving from one square to the next. If you take the attack action to stab at an enemy in an adjacent square, you can imagine your character stepping to the edge of its square to stab at the opponent at an opportune moment when the opponent is at the edge of its own square closest to you. The distance between the closest border of two adjacent squares is 0 feet, if you think about it from a mathematical perspective.
Remember that the rules we discuss are game mechanics that come at the cost of realism. It is true that the rules regarding movement could be a bit clearer (especially the usage of "movement" vs "your move" and whether or not the latter is considered a game term), but personally I believe the game makes sense when the rules are interpreted to mean that a move is ended when you do something other than moving, or when your turn ends, which also seems to be RAI. However this doesn't mean you have to narrate the story in a janky fashion as if the characters are 8-bit people moving only in straight lines in a 2D world.
You at no point, not even by way of your weapon, ever move into their space, though? Even if they are at the edge of theirs, it would still be at most literally just touching them. A blade cannot slice, point cannot pierce, bludgeon cannot concuss without being in the space of the target. It is literally an impossibility.
Of course things can enter a space. You can stand a few inches from an opponent and go for a headbutt. Your weapon of choice would enter your opponent's space, but you would not have moved into the area mechanically speaking. If you grapple an opponent you might be holding their arm to prevent them from moving, but neither of you are in the other's space. That is how the game mechanics work.
Could you both stick around and attack from that space then?
The rules don't say you can't share space with another creature, it prevent ways to willingly end à move that would do so. Once you share one, nothing technically prevent you from remainng there.
There are many ways to share space either via fall or forced movement, Swarm trait, or when swalloed or engulfed for exemple all of which doesn't happen willingly necessarily
Could you both stick around and attack from that space then?
Have a hard time seeing myself allowing them both to stay there. And while they do share space I'd probably use this rule to adjudicate any situations.
Squeezing into a Smaller Space
A creature can squeeze through a space that is large enough for a creature one size smaller than it. Thus, a Large creature can squeeze through a passage that’s only 5 feet wide. While squeezing through a space, a creature must spend 1 extra foot for every foot it moves there, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage while it’s in the smaller space.
Personally i always interpreted squeezing rules to apply for space physically limited in size. When you share space with another creature, the space you occupy is technically not smaller, its still 5 feet for medium size and 10 feet for large size. The space you occupy and control simply overlap with the one of someone else. But its a good justification to impose any penalty if a DM wish so.
You at no point, not even by way of your weapon, ever move into their space, though? Even if they are at the edge of theirs, it would still be at most literally just touching them. A blade cannot slice, point cannot pierce, bludgeon cannot concuss without being in the space of the target. It is literally an impossibility.
Can't say that I see your point. You do realise that movement and attacking are separate things right?
The fact that you normally can't intentionally occupy/share the same space as another creature (a few special circumstances can get around that) for a prolonged period does not mean that it is impossible to briefly have your weapon enter that space as part of an attack. They are completely different situations and I can't see why you would try to equate them.
I know the game mechanics, but you are still dancing around to make sense of them. Not being in each other's space while being in each other's space.
The clearest exceptions are riding, or climbing a sufficiently large enemy. Or pinning an enemy...
And those are exceptions because they aren't the same sort of situation as two similar sized creatures sharing the same limited space.
Pinning is somewhat problematic yes but I'd have no trouble allowing the creatures share a space in that situation. The reason for that is simple, there will be limited movement going on and the Restrained imposes the same penalties as squeezing does (advantage to be hit, disadvantage to hit, disadvantage to dex saves).
I know the game mechanics, but you are still dancing around to make sense of them. Not being in each other's space while being in each other's space.
The clearest exceptions are riding, or climbing a sufficiently large enemy. Or pinning an enemy...
I understand the urge to have mechanics and narrative align 100%, but anything that relies on a general structure can't account for 100% of what happens inside of an individual's head. You have to make a few compromises along the way. The alternative is to have a game with no rules.
There are specific rules that broadly address mounting a mount, and optional rules that cover climbing a sufficiently large enemy. As for pinning an enemy (I'm assuming you are referring to imposing the restrained condition on an enemy using the Grappler feat?), it works in the same way as grappling an enemy, except for the effect. If you want the mechanics and the narration to be a closer match, then perhaps think of being grappled as being held in the arm, and being restrained as being held in the ear.
I've always found the squeezing rules to be a useful compromise for all kinds of weird movement issues. Odd map geometry? Squeezing. On a narrow ledge? Squeezing. Striking from an ally's square? Squeezing. It's quick and easy. It's... Squeezy.
You move between actions and possibly between attacks if you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack which means before and after it.
If this is true then it is impossible to jump up and attack an enemy that is a few feet above you (say 6 feet above you).
It really makes jump useless in combat because there is almost nothing you can do while jumping because jumping is movement. Taken with a strict interpretation you can not jump and grab on to a rope, since grabbing the rope would be an action and you would need to wait for the move to be completted (ie the jump to land).
You move between actions and possibly between attacks if you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack which means before and after it.
If this is true then it is impossible to jump up and attack an enemy that is a few feet above you (say 6 feet above you).
Correct.
It really makes jump useless in combat
Less correct.
because there is almost nothing you can do while jumping
Indeed.
because jumping is movement.
So is walking, but nobody says walking is useless in combat.
Taken with a strict interpretation you can not jump and grab on to a rope, since grabbing the rope would be an action and you would need to wait for the move to be completted (ie the jump to land).
You can if you haven't interacted with an object yet on your turn. The first one's free. It even says "during your movement or action."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While this is a true quote of the rules, you have totally misunderstood how the game works. You are 100% wrong here. Among other things, you do not have to actually stop moving ever. Creatures that are flying do not stop their movement, they move from the beginning of their turn, to the end of their turn, during other people's turn, etc. etc. They do not stop flying until they decide to stop flying. Same with me running. I do not run, stop and wait for everyone to do what they want, then start running again on my turn.
The turn system is a construct built to simplify the game, and movement is not a Move action. The turn system gives me constraints on what I can do in 6 seconds, but it all happens simultaneously. It gives me a Bonus Action, Move Action, regular Action and a Reaction. But your Move is over only when you have used up all your 'speed', actually happens exactly when your turn ends, and has nothing do with me stopping movement. If I have a walking speed of 35, then my 'move' does not end until I have moved 35 ft. If my swim speed is 15, then I only end my move when I have swum 15.
Basically, you get to fire your attack in the middle of your move, not before, after, nor do you end your movement while you are attacking.
If you read the PHB, you will see the following quotes:
For this reason, your insistence about 'move' ending is irrelevant because the move does not end merely because my body is currently occupying the same location that an ally is in. I still have 5 ft of movement left, so while my other actions may occur when I in a specific spot, I have not ended my movement at that spot. It only ends when I use the last of my speed, which of course happens after I leave the space my ally is in (or if someone restrains me, which ends my movement unwilling).
"End your move" and "stop moving" are not necessarily the same thing.
When I read that "end your move" to me means finish your move for the turn. Stop moving is different. If I have a 30 foot move, I can move 5 feet attack once, move 5 feet, attack again and I have attacked twice and not "ended my move" I still have another 20 foot movement left. I can move another 5 feet, then jump 5 feet, then drop prone, then cast a bonus action spell, then crawl 5 feet and only at this point have ended my move.
Movng doesn't end strictly when you run out of mouvement speed, nor are you in constant movement from the begining to the end of your turn. You start and end moving when you do something else other than moving. That way you move between actions and between attacks if an action contain more than 1 weapon attack. The rules don't say you move during action or attacks but between them.
The Devs have answered this question before. .
https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-a-character-move-into-a-space-occupied-by-their-ally/amp/
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/636294197226528769?lang=en
Attacking your opponent doesn't require you to move into their space. If you're playing on a grid, the square you're in represents the space you command, which simply put means the space in which you do things while you're not moving from one square to the next. If you take the attack action to stab at an enemy in an adjacent square, you can imagine your character stepping to the edge of its square to stab at the opponent at an opportune moment when the opponent is at the edge of its own square closest to you. The distance between the closest border of two adjacent squares is 0 feet, if you think about it from a mathematical perspective.
Remember that the rules we discuss are game mechanics that come at the cost of realism. It is true that the rules regarding movement could be a bit clearer (especially the usage of "movement" vs "your move" and whether or not the latter is considered a game term), but personally I believe the game makes sense when the rules are interpreted to mean that a move is ended when you do something other than moving, or when your turn ends, which also seems to be RAI. However this doesn't mean you have to narrate the story in a janky fashion as if the characters are 8-bit people moving only in straight lines in a 2D world.
Yes you can move between action as i said, which include before and after one..
No when you attack a creature within tour reach you are not moving. Attacking and moving are two different things.
The argument seems to come down to a disagreement over what constitutes ending your move. If taking an action in the middle of your move means you have (temporarily?) ended your move to take the action, then that should apply to attack as well as taking the dash action, which seems pretty relevant considering moving through another creature's space is difficult terrain.
Now I'm wondering what happens if you end your move in another creature's space, but not willingly.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You simply share space with the other creature .
Could you both stick around and attack from that space then?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Once you regain control over your movement, not immediately leaving the occupied space I feel would constitute "willingly ending your move in another creature's space."
Of course things can enter a space. You can stand a few inches from an opponent and go for a headbutt. Your weapon of choice would enter your opponent's space, but you would not have moved into the area mechanically speaking. If you grapple an opponent you might be holding their arm to prevent them from moving, but neither of you are in the other's space. That is how the game mechanics work.
The rules don't say you can't share space with another creature, it prevent ways to willingly end à move that would do so. Once you share one, nothing technically prevent you from remainng there.
There are many ways to share space either via fall or forced movement, Swarm trait, or when swalloed or engulfed for exemple all of which doesn't happen willingly necessarily
Have a hard time seeing myself allowing them both to stay there. And while they do share space I'd probably use this rule to adjudicate any situations.
Personally i always interpreted squeezing rules to apply for space physically limited in size. When you share space with another creature, the space you occupy is technically not smaller, its still 5 feet for medium size and 10 feet for large size. The space you occupy and control simply overlap with the one of someone else. But its a good justification to impose any penalty if a DM wish so.
Can't say that I see your point. You do realise that movement and attacking are separate things right?
The fact that you normally can't intentionally occupy/share the same space as another creature (a few special circumstances can get around that) for a prolonged period does not mean that it is impossible to briefly have your weapon enter that space as part of an attack. They are completely different situations and I can't see why you would try to equate them.
And those are exceptions because they aren't the same sort of situation as two similar sized creatures sharing the same limited space.
Pinning is somewhat problematic yes but I'd have no trouble allowing the creatures share a space in that situation. The reason for that is simple, there will be limited movement going on and the Restrained imposes the same penalties as squeezing does (advantage to be hit, disadvantage to hit, disadvantage to dex saves).
I understand the urge to have mechanics and narrative align 100%, but anything that relies on a general structure can't account for 100% of what happens inside of an individual's head. You have to make a few compromises along the way. The alternative is to have a game with no rules.
There are specific rules that broadly address mounting a mount, and optional rules that cover climbing a sufficiently large enemy. As for pinning an enemy (I'm assuming you are referring to imposing the restrained condition on an enemy using the Grappler feat?), it works in the same way as grappling an enemy, except for the effect. If you want the mechanics and the narration to be a closer match, then perhaps think of being grappled as being held in the arm, and being restrained as being held in the ear.
I've always found the squeezing rules to be a useful compromise for all kinds of weird movement issues. Odd map geometry? Squeezing. On a narrow ledge? Squeezing. Striking from an ally's square? Squeezing. It's quick and easy. It's... Squeezy.
If this is true then it is impossible to jump up and attack an enemy that is a few feet above you (say 6 feet above you).
It really makes jump useless in combat because there is almost nothing you can do while jumping because jumping is movement. Taken with a strict interpretation you can not jump and grab on to a rope, since grabbing the rope would be an action and you would need to wait for the move to be completted (ie the jump to land).
Correct.
Less correct.
Indeed.
So is walking, but nobody says walking is useless in combat.
You can if you haven't interacted with an object yet on your turn. The first one's free. It even says "during your movement or action."