Allies in your space: Are they adjacent?

[SangoProduction]

As the title says. Are inner allies also adjacent allies? (Let's say the allies either have swarming, or incorporeality, or something.)

What about for large allies with smaller allies inside their space? They are definitely adjacent to at least one other square of yours.

What about for 2 large allies partially overlapping one another? That way they indisputably have at least one leg outside-adjacent to their outer square.

[Particle_Man]

I don’t know about RAW but RAI I would say yes. They are still next to you (take away the grid for a second and just see the characters) so whatever affects someone next to you should affect them too.

[Gruftzwerg]

RAW:


In a square that shares a border or a corner with a designated square. Each square is adjacent to eight other squares on the board.

Taken purely RAW, adjacent is defined as one of the 8 neighbor squares, sharing a board with your square.

Thus, your "inner ally" woudn't work, while the scenarios with the larger creatures would work.


RAI:
For actual play I would go with the most (real life) logical option depending on the individual situation. Some things (skills / abilities/ effects/..) make sens, other may not.

[Mike Miller]

I second Gruftzwerg's explanation. Sounds about right to me.

[SangoProduction]

Oh neat! A definition! Time to work my lawyering magic:

A square inherently shares all its borders and corners with itself. It says "8 other squares" but does not exclude itself, because it's only specifying the other squares.
Further, you can still be adjacent to another of the ally's squares from the inside, if they are larger than you.

Except... "Share," in English involves 2 things doing the sharing, or having something in common. Even though A = A is a valid mathematical statement. It does not mean that it "shares" with itself, because that's not what share means.

But the part about being inside a larger ally still applies.

[Gruftzwerg]

...
It says "8 other squares" but does not exclude itself, ...

How shall I put this..
I think you missed something there^^


"8 other squares"

other square != same square/itself

"other" excludes "itself".


But yeah, as said the part about larger creatures' spacing (!!!) still apply.
Since you did brought up swarms, they cover more space than normal for their size.
What I wanna say is, "the space it needs is the relevant stat here and not the size" ;)

[nedz]

In a square that shares a border or a corner with a designated square. Each square is adjacent to eight other squares on the board.

Note: squares are either adjacent or not, not creatures.

So is a square adjacent to itself ?
That's Russell's paradox right here.

Actually the question is not the right one to be asking: there are different answers for each situation.
e.g.


Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures

Very small creatures take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one such creature can fit into a single square. A Tiny creature typically occupies a space only 2½ feet across, so four can fit into a single square. Twenty-five Diminutive creatures or 100 Fine creatures can fit into a single square. Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can’t reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent’s square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without provoking attacks of opportunity. They also can’t flank an enemy.

FWIW: This implies that squares are not adjacent to themselves.