|
1. Can you or can you not attack diagonally at a distance of 2x squares (15'=10' exception) with a reach weapon?
2. The wording on Stand still uses adjacent, so did you specifically leave out reach weapons?
3. The wording on Step up uses adjacent, so did you specifically leave out reach weapons?
Relevant Threads Stand Still and Step Up
These two threads have provided ideas, suggestions, and an almost general consensus with regards to houseruling these situations. Also, I realize what I would do in my games with regards to Rule Number Zero (GM Discretion). However, I do enjoy playing the game as a PC, and I am therefore not the GM all the time, and happen to like reach weapons as well as any other type of weapon. I would love to be able to point out an official ruling (even if that is "figure it out yourself") to players and GM's alike. Please help me.
Very Respectfully,
Frank
I support this thread. The ambiguity has left things in something of a haze when it comes to reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I support this thread. The ambiguity has left things in something of a haze when it comes to reach.
Which of course means that Reach has Concealment, a 20% miss chance, and cannot be sneak attacked. It can, however, attempt a Stealth check if it so chooses.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Can you or can you not attack diagonally at a distance of 2x squares (15'=10' exception) with a reach weapon?
Nope. A reach weapon gives a specific extension to your reach. When you count out squares, since every other square is doubled when you count diagonally, that means that there'll be corners where you can't reach.
2. The wording on Stand still uses adjacent, so did you specifically leave out reach weapons?
Yes. Allowing Stand Still to halt movement before foes even get a chance to be adjacent to you locks ALL melee attacks out, and is thus far too powerful.
3. The wording on Step up uses adjacent, so did you specifically leave out reach weapons?
Yes; for the same reasons as above, but reversed. Allowing a creature to move so that another creature has extreme difficulty in retreating is not good. Furthermore, if this ability worked with reach, you'd be making more than a 5-foot step, which is beyond the scope of how far a 5-foot step can carry you in the first place.
1. Can you or can you not attack diagonally at a distance of 2x squares (15'=10' exception) with a reach weapon?Nope. A reach weapon gives a specific extension to your reach. When you count out squares, since every other square is doubled when you count diagonally, that means that there'll be corners where you can't reach.
This one makes no sense to me. It means that someone with a polearm has a gaping hole where anyone can still approach at an angle (which is purely an abstraction due to the square battle map) without worry of attacks of opportunity?
For me, this breaks verisimilitude.
|
1. Can you or can you not attack diagonally at a distance of 2x squares (15'=10' exception) with a reach weapon?Nope. A reach weapon gives a specific extension to your reach. When you count out squares, since every other square is doubled when you count diagonally, that means that there'll be corners where you can't reach.
This one makes no sense to me. It means that someone with a polearm has a gaping hole where anyone can still approach at an angle (which is purely an abstraction due to the square battle map) without worry of attacks of opportunity?
For me, this breaks verisimilitude.
Play on a hex grid ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. A reach weapon gives a specific extension to your reach. When you count out squares, since every other square is doubled when you count diagonally, that means that there'll be corners where you can't reach.
Umm, doesn't that mean that there are 4 gaps in the coverage (along the diagonals) that would allow an approaching opponent to move right next to the reach weapon wielding character without triggering an AoO at all? That doesn't seem right.
Edit: Ninja'd by Meatrace.
1. So just to clarify, a fighter with a reach weapon threatens all X...
OXXXO
XOOOX
XOFOX
XOOOX
OXXXO
and concequently does not get an AoO if an opponent approaches his diagonal.
2. Cool, you guys are awesome! Thank you so much for the quick answer!
3. I don't really understand. If a mage took a five foot step back, a fighter with a reach weapon threatening that mage would only get to step up 5' to maintain threat, right?e.g. if F=Fighter O=blank spot M=Mage
Start -> mage's 5' step -> step upw/reach weapon
FOM -> FOOM ->FOM
vs
w/o Reach weapon
FM -> FOM ->FMStill only a 5' step?
I'd probably house rule that he can AoO when someone approaches diagonally because they would be passing through a 10' circle threatened by him. He doesn't threaten the corner squares because a 10' circle doesn't even reach into those squares. AoO's on someone standing in the corners just seems silly if the weapon won't reach into those squares, but if someone passes over the 10' line to get to you, then you should get an AoO.
I'd probably house rule that he can AoO when someone approaches diagonally because they would be passing through a 10' circle threatened by him. He doesn't threaten the corner squares because a 10' circle doesn't even reach into those squares. AoO's on someone standing in the corners just seems silly if the weapon won't reach into those squares, but if someone passes over the 10' line to get to you, then you should get an AoO.
That isn't even exactly, strictly, rules-lawyerishly, a houserule.
To wit: the description of "Reach" in the Equipment section of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook says this:
Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.
This says you don't threaten the adjacent squares. For a small or medium wielder, that's the 8 squares that are "inside" your reach.
Note that it says you "can attack a creature 10 feet away". This says "creature" not "square".
So, obviously, when a creature more than 10 feet away approaches a small or medium wielder of a reach weapon, and he follows a direct diagonal approach, when he is two squares away, he is 15' away and out of the defender's reach. Then when he moves one square, he is only 5' away and "inside" the defender's reach. But in order to move from 15' away to 5' away he will be, at some point, "10 feet away" which is exactly what the written text says the defender "can attack": he ""can attack a creature 10 feet away". This says "creature" not "square".
So, yes, that diagonally-moving enemy is never in a square that is "10 feet away", but he is, at one point in his move, "10 feet away", even though that point is between two squares on the battle grid. And because the defender can attack him at "10 feet away", then this movement should provoke an AoO.
***********************************************************************
Admittedly, this little bit of rules-lawyering is in conflict with the Combat section that says "moving out of a threatened square provokes an AoO". In this case, the diagonally-moving enemy never moves out of a threatened square, so it can easily be rules-lawyered that he never technically provokes.
So when two conflicting rules clash, and both can be justified by RAW (or official Creative Director forums response), we have to find the most sensible resolution.
In this case, I think even those of you who posted this conundrum about the diagonal movement realize that this is paradoxical. One poster said it breaks verisimilitude. All of which is true and correct.
So, you have two conflicting rules and you already know which one doesn't make sense (freely moving without provoking an AoO just because you choose a diagonal), so stick with the one that does make sense (moving from "10 feet away" to "5 feet away" provokes against a reach weapon, even if you do it on a diagonal, even though the square you left was too far away to provoke via other actions).
Problem solved.
@DM Blake: Isn't the problem also solved by simply allowing the reach weapon to ignore the diagonals/distance rule? To me that makes a lot more sense than saying that you don't threaten these squares, but you do, kinda, but not really.
@DM Blake: Isn't the problem also solved by simply allowing the reach weapon to ignore the diagonals/distance rule? To me that makes a lot more sense than saying that you don't threaten these squares, but you do, kinda, but not really.
Especially since, AFAIK, monster reach doesn't behave this way.
@DM Blake: Isn't the problem also solved by simply allowing the reach weapon to ignore the diagonals/distance rule? To me that makes a lot more sense than saying that you don't threaten these squares, but you do, kinda, but not really.Especially since, AFAIK, monster reach doesn't behave this way.
Sure it does, except they can also hit adjacent enemies. A giant with a club can hit people 10' feet away and 5' away, but he still can't hit people 15' away.
@DM Blake: Isn't the problem also solved by simply allowing the reach weapon to ignore the diagonals/distance rule? To me that makes a lot more sense than saying that you don't threaten these squares, but you do, kinda, but not really.
Nah, if you want to battle on a square grid, you get strange geometry sometimes. No matter what you do.
Much better, just forget the grid. Use an empty tabletop, or a whiteboard so you can draw things like trees and buildings and such, and then just measure everything with rulers. Then there is no such thing as diagonals.
But, keep the squares, and you keep the wonkiness.
Frankly, I don't see any difference between the silliness you pointed out ("you don't threaten these squares, but you do, kinda, but not really"), which really is silly, or the alternative which would be "yeah, that square is 10 feet away if you swing your glaive at it but it's 15 feet away if you try to move to it".
That seems just as silly to me. They're both silly.
However, fortunately, one of these silly things is in the RAW, and supported by the Creative Director, so we can easily decide which silly thing is correct. And once we know that, we can decide if we would rather use houserules to change it to the other silly thing (or houserules to get rid of squares entirely, which is far less silly but a whole lot more work).
Sorry, but I still think this a poorly thought out ruling. It requires a house rule to prevent the loss of an AoO AND makes determining what squares a character with reach or a reach weapon threatens more difficult.
Edit: You ninja'd me. I agree that squares cause weirdness. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't that big of an issue. I just think TPTB made a call without considering the ramifications.
Reach and diagonals worked differently in 3.5 then, where diagonals were explicitly ignored in this one instance. As pointed out, that's one heck of a weird hole in the rules if they don't threaten diagonal squares. I'll be ignoring this ruling and continuing to use the fully functional 3.5 ruling.
Sorry, but I still think this a poorly thought out ruling. It requires a house rule to prevent the loss of an AoO AND makes determining what squares a character with reach or a reach weapon threatens more difficult.
Or, NOT a houserule at all.
And just counting squares like we always do. 5 - 10 - 15 - 20 or 5 - 15 - 20 - 30. Not really all that hard.
On the other hand, it is far more "realistic", since that square (two diagonal squares away) really is almost 15 feet away (14.something feet). Since those reach weapons don't magically extend themselves to get that extra 5' of reach just because they somehow know they're on a square grid and need to apply some basic geometry to define their length, it kinda makes sense, mathematically, not to let thim hit enemies they cannot reach.
Or, it's a game, invoke rule-zero, and play it however you like.
Sure it does, except they can also hit adjacent enemies. A giant with a club can hit people 10' feet away and 5' away, but he still can't hit people 15' away.@DM Blake: Isn't the problem also solved by simply allowing the reach weapon to ignore the diagonals/distance rule? To me that makes a lot more sense than saying that you don't threaten these squares, but you do, kinda, but not really.Especially since, AFAIK, monster reach doesn't behave this way.
Did this change in PF? In the 3.5 DMG in the back they have diagrams for reach of large/larger creatures. A large creature threatens everything 5 and 10' away, ignoring diagonals.
I can see no such diagrams in the PF book, and the passage about squares counted double in diagonal is under the movement section and reasonably only pertains to movement. Unless there's another passage I have missed.
In my home games we've removed the diagonal rule. If I could get away with it I'd use my warhammer measuring sticks and just go from there.
|
|
"An opponent moving diagonally may be subject to an attack of opportunity if that movement passes along a point that is shared by two squares that are threatened by the same creature but do not share a side. Treat their square of origin as threatened and within reach for the purpose of determining and resolving attacks of opportunity in this case."
My suggestion. Could probably use some wording clean-up, but oh well.
Or, NOT a houserule at all.
No, it is a houserule. It's a commonsense houserule, but still a houserule. The rules say you you trigger an AoO if you move from a threatened square. If diagonal squares aren't threatened, then no AoO. I agree that moving from the diagonal should trigger, but by the ruling it doesn't.
Again, not a huge issue, but one that I think TPTB got wrong.
Yeah, that ruling on reach and diagonals doesn't seem right to me at all either--and it most certainly is different than the way D&D handled it.
At higher reaches (15, 20+ feet) the corners did start to round out (which was fine as people still couldn't approach without provoking), but not at 10-ft. reach.
|
|
Does anybody have any insight on why the diagonal rule exists in the first place? The elimination of said rule was the only thing I liked about 4.0 (Seriously, the only thing). I've never quite been able to work it out - not that I have any real problem with it.
If you're talking about the 5,10,5 movement ruling, blame Pythagoras : \
I just had this issue come up and from what I could tell here's what I figured out.
1 square = 5ft
If you put two squares diagonally that's 10ft. (not mathematically but still screw math here)
If you move the movement is NOT measured in feet. It is measured in squares. The first square diagonally consumes one square of movement. The second one consumes two. The third consumes another one square of movement.
I think this distinction between movement squares and actual distance is important. Because reach weapons don't say "You can only hit creatures two squares away." They say 10ft.
Otherwise a caster or archer rarely has to worry about an enemy getting close to them. Unless they are cornered there would always be a square within 5ft step of safety free of an AoO. Or multiple opponents or 15ft reach of course.
Well now this IS interesting... and not backwards compatible at all... I kind of expect them to fix it. The idea of 1-inch square grid maps is inherent in the 3.X rules set, you can get rid of it and use something equivalent but it gets a little weird.
Actually, if you make a straight line with one inch = 5 feet the diagonals work perfectly (as is, with the 5,10,5 movement). Try it, it kind of threw me for a loop.
Does anybody have any insight on why the diagonal rule exists in the first place? The elimination of said rule was the only thing I liked about 4.0 (Seriously, the only thing). I've never quite been able to work it out - not that I have any real problem with it.If you're talking about the 5,10,5 movement ruling, blame Pythagoras : \
Or just blame mathematics, geometry, or reality - and then blame the game makers who had a basic understanding of these things, coupled with a desire to inject an abstracted application of them into the game.
Does anybody have any insight on why the diagonal rule exists in the first place? The elimination of said rule was the only thing I liked about 4.0 (Seriously, the only thing). I've never quite been able to work it out - not that I have any real problem with it.
In 3.0, diagonals didn't count extra, and everyone moved diagonally as much as possible, since they were in fact moving further than they otherwise could.
3.5 changed it so that it was actually more mathematically sound, and it became much better in my opinion.
When 4.0 changed it back, it was yet another mark against it in my eyes, as everyone now still does their best to get as many diagonals as possible into their movement simply because it is a more efficient movement to do so.
|
|
Does anybody have any insight on why the diagonal rule exists in the first place? The elimination of said rule was the only thing I liked about 4.0 (Seriously, the only thing). I've never quite been able to work it out - not that I have any real problem with it.In 3.0, diagonals didn't count extra, and everyone moved diagonally as much as possible, since they were in fact moving further than they otherwise could.
3.5 changed it so that it was actually more mathematically sound, and it became much better in my opinion.
When 4.0 changed it back, it was yet another mark against it in my eyes, as everyone now still does their best to get as many diagonals as possible into their movement simply because it is a more efficient movement to do so.
Not sure if I read it in a Sage Advice but I was pretty sure that in 3rd and/or 3.5 that reach weapons did hit that 2nd diagonal square. I think that it was an exception to the 5/10/5 is why I remember. Not trying to gainsay JJ, that's just how I remember handling it in 3rd. otherwise players would always approach larger enemies or enemies with reach from the diagonals.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well now this IS interesting... and not backwards compatible at all... I kind of expect them to fix it. The idea of 1-inch square grid maps is inherent in the 3.X rules set, you can get rid of it and use something equivalent but it gets a little weird.
Actually, if you make a straight line with one inch = 5 feet the diagonals work perfectly (as is, with the 5,10,5 movement). Try it, it kind of threw me for a loop.
I suspect I might have ruled wrong on how reach works, but it makes logical sense to me. If you prefer to have reach fill an entire area around you rather than leave "holes" in the corners, that's fine. That's how most people rule it, I believe, and the sky hasn't fallen yet so it's probably okay. :-)
As for Sage Advice... not only did those rulings apply to a different game, but they were hardly infallible.
|
|
Well now this IS interesting... and not backwards compatible at all... I kind of expect them to fix it. The idea of 1-inch square grid maps is inherent in the 3.X rules set, you can get rid of it and use something equivalent but it gets a little weird.
Actually, if you make a straight line with one inch = 5 feet the diagonals work perfectly (as is, with the 5,10,5 movement). Try it, it kind of threw me for a loop.I suspect I might have ruled wrong on how reach works, but it makes logical sense to me. If you prefer to have reach fill an entire area around you rather than leave "holes" in the corners, that's fine. That's how most people rule it, I believe, and the sky hasn't fallen yet so it's probably okay. :-)
As for Sage Advice... not only did those rulings apply to a different game, but they were hardly infallible.
I hate to say it but this is literally one of those 'corner cases' in the game :\
I hate to say it but this is literally one of those 'corner cases' in the game :\Well now this IS interesting... and not backwards compatible at all... I kind of expect them to fix it. The idea of 1-inch square grid maps is inherent in the 3.X rules set, you can get rid of it and use something equivalent but it gets a little weird.
Actually, if you make a straight line with one inch = 5 feet the diagonals work perfectly (as is, with the 5,10,5 movement). Try it, it kind of threw me for a loop.I suspect I might have ruled wrong on how reach works, but it makes logical sense to me. If you prefer to have reach fill an entire area around you rather than leave "holes" in the corners, that's fine. That's how most people rule it, I believe, and the sky hasn't fallen yet so it's probably okay. :-)
As for Sage Advice... not only did those rulings apply to a different game, but they were hardly infallible.
I LOLed
Does anybody have any insight on why the diagonal rule exists in the first place? The elimination of said rule was the only thing I liked about 4.0 (Seriously, the only thing). I've never quite been able to work it out - not that I have any real problem with it.
That was one of the things I disliked about 4e.
Consider this battle grid:
M
o.1
o.o.2
F.o.o.3
o.o.4
o.5
6
W
This is a monster (M) who wants to get past the fighter (F) to attack the wizard (W). The monster correctly surmises the fighter has the Stand Still feat and is wielding a longsword, so the monster knows it can't get past him. How does the monster do it?
If he follows the numbers from M to 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5, he can get ajdacent to the W and chew off that wizard's face, and he will avoid any AoO from the fighter at F.
In the official RAW, this takes 5-10-5-10-5-10 feet of movement. 45 feet. Most can't do that in a single move action, so by RAW, the wizard is usually safe behind his fighter.
But if you play it by the 4e rules, that monster only has to move 5-5-5-5-5-5 for a total of 30'. He goes completely around the fighter and kills the squishy wizard. The fighter is useless, trivialized in this encounter, and has absolutely no way to use that lovely Stand Still feat that he invested in.
Now, if you're not sure how this works in the real world, just measure it out using a battle-mat with 1" squares, but don't count the squares, actually measure these two moves using a ruler:
1. Remove the fighter from F so it is an empty square and measure from M to 6 in a straight line. 6 inches.
2. Measure from M to 3 in a straight line (4.24 inches) and then from 3 to 6 in a straight line (4.24 inches) for a total of 8.48 inches.
IMO, the scenario I describe here comes up a lot. Easily going around enemies you don't want to deal with to get to the people those enemies want to protect.
Likewise, trying to diagonally approach a polearm-wielding defender so you can metagame his reach weapon comes up much less often.
If I have to pick one of those things to be broken, I pick the reach weapon with a hole in the reach-radius.
Fortunately, I don't have to pick either of them to be broken, because the RAW gives me rules for movement that actually mimic real life (well, close enough for an abstract tactical simulation), and they also give me rules for what "can attack a creature 10 feet away" means, so I can trump "leave a threatened square" with "attack 10 feet away" rule.
It's win-win.
|
|
I'm actually 100% in agreement with the ruling, because I can't fathom how a square can be two different distances away depending on whether you're talking about moving into it or attacking into it. You look at things like radius/diameter areas of effect, those have the corners rounded off. If I understand correctly, reach weapons threaten 12 squares at any given moment, while non-reach weapons threaten 8...still seems like an advantage to me, at least situationally. I get the whole "AoO avoided if approached on a diagonal" thing, but given that there are 4 diagonal avenues of approach by which this is actually a concern and the reach weapon actually threatens 4 more squares that non-reach weapons do to begin with, I guess it seems like a fair trade-off to me. Not trying to argue that anyone else should see it my way, but...well, there it is.
|
|
In my defense: Playing a game by the RAW for that game and deliberately ignoring rules for a preceding game (no matter how closely related) is not house-ruling by any stretch of the imagination.
To repeat my statement from the other thread here: Jason had the opportunity to review the 3.5 SRD and all other rules compendiums for 3.5 when he updated it to Pathfinder, and he did not include verbiage similar to what was quoted above. Perhaps it was an oversight, but perhaps it wasn't. If he, in this thread or another, says "Whoops, my bad", and updates Pathfinder to include similar verbiage, then it would be house-ruling to play it differently. Until then, it is not, respectfully.
If he were to do that, I'd be the first guy onboard with the ruling. Until he does, I'm not going to rule it that way - and a part of me /facepalms when it's implied that in doing so, I'm house-ruling something.
From the 3.5 SRD:
"Note: Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)"PFRPG 1.0 might have changed this, I don't know. But if it was not explicitly changed I would say the above is the correct RAW ruling on reach. Feel free to house rule it otherwise.
You know, that 3.5 SRD is the ruleset for a different game, right?
If you look about 5 or 6 posts above yours, you'll see this:
As for Sage Advice... not only did those rulings apply to a different game, but they were hardly infallible.
So while 3.5 might have some helpful guidelines, and it is certainly full of all kinds of material that can become Pathfinder houserules, it really is a different game, and what was or was not RAW in 3.5 is only useful memorabilia at best.
Or in other words, "This game is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to other games, real or imaginary, is purly coincidence..."
Well now this IS interesting... and not backwards compatible at all... I kind of expect them to fix it. The idea of 1-inch square grid maps is inherent in the 3.X rules set, you can get rid of it and use something equivalent but it gets a little weird.
Actually, if you make a straight line with one inch = 5 feet the diagonals work perfectly (as is, with the 5,10,5 movement). Try it, it kind of threw me for a loop.I suspect I might have ruled wrong on how reach works, but it makes logical sense to me. If you prefer to have reach fill an entire area around you rather than leave "holes" in the corners, that's fine. That's how most people rule it, I believe, and the sky hasn't fallen yet so it's probably okay. :-)
As for Sage Advice... not only did those rulings apply to a different game, but they were hardly infallible.
lol yeah, true, that pesky sky.
I think that seeing as the weapons threaten half of a diagonal square (and I can't see any rules for taking up half a square) I'll probably just play it as I have been, but its definitely an interesting thought. Maybe Pathfinder should have templates/reach charts in one of the books to stem confusion.
I would just house-rule that if two corner-adjacent squares are both threatened by the same creature, then moving diagonally between them provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature that threatens those squares. In other words:
XO
FX
Frank (F) wants to move diagonally to the square marked O. Both squares marked X are threatened. If they are threatened by the same creature (due to a reach weapon), moving between them provokes AoO. If they are threatened by two different creatures (for example, by two orcs standing just off the northwest and southeast corners of the diagram), then moving between them does not provoke.
|
|
Well now this IS interesting... and not backwards compatible at all... I kind of expect them to fix it. The idea of 1-inch square grid maps is inherent in the 3.X rules set, you can get rid of it and use something equivalent but it gets a little weird.
Actually, if you make a straight line with one inch = 5 feet the diagonals work perfectly (as is, with the 5,10,5 movement). Try it, it kind of threw me for a loop.I suspect I might have ruled wrong on how reach works, but it makes logical sense to me. If you prefer to have reach fill an entire area around you rather than leave "holes" in the corners, that's fine. That's how most people rule it, I believe, and the sky hasn't fallen yet so it's probably okay. :-)
As for Sage Advice... not only did those rulings apply to a different game, but they were hardly infallible.
James,
Part of the benefit of Reach is that enemies cannot approach in a single round without risking retribution. If you don't give corners on 10' reach you leave an easily exploitable hole in that defense. If we go a step further with this and look at Reach Weapons, which to the best of my understanding don't let you attack adjacent spaces, this would mean that the pole-arm wielder would be screwed as anyone could move up to them and they would never be allowed to use their weapon on that person. We used to exploit this to hell and back when fighting Giants, and it made their size "bonuses" somewhat irrelevant. All that said, its just my experience with reach. YMMV
Graywulfe
XO
FXFrank (F) wants to move diagonally to the square marked O. Both squares marked X are threatened. If they are threatened by the same creature (due to a reach weapon), moving between them provokes AoO.
Further noodle baking: If Frank gets tripped on the AoO, which square does he fall down in?
How does a Large (Tall) creature wielding a reach weapon work? (Assuming he doesn't drop a hand to punch adjacent) Dead zone adjacent? Two squares of dead zone? What about corners?
Ogre with a Longspear (X) surrounded by dead zone (D) then threat squares(R):
D D R R R D D
D R R R R R D
R R D D D R R
R R D X D R R
R R D D D R R
D R R R R R D
D D R R R D D
Man, it's too bad the [code] blocks don't work here. Monospace font would make this easier.
Further noodle baking: If Frank gets tripped on the AoO, which square does he fall down in?
He falls down in the square he tried to move out of, just like if he'd tried to move out of a threatened square. EDIT: Originally, I said "the rule treats Frank's square as a threatened square only for the purposes of moving into the square marked O," but that's not exactly right. In order for the rule to work
Ogre with a Longspear (X) surrounded by dead zone (D) then threat squares(R):
D D R R R D D
D R R R R R D
R R D D D R R
R R D X D R R
R R D D D R R
D R R R R R D
D D R R R D D
No, a large or larger creature using a reach weapon can strike up to double its natural reach, but not within its natural reach (PRD, Big and Little Creatures in Combat). So your ogre diagram would look like:
D D D R R R D D D
D R R R R R R R D
D R R D D D R R D
R R D D D D D R R
R R D D X D D R R
R R D D D D D R R
D R R D D D R R D
D R R R R R R R D
D D D R R R D D D
EDIT: Originally I wrote, "The house rule ensures that getting to the ogre requires moving through at least 2 threatened squares, no matter which direction you come from." Turns out that's not actually true. However, I think the house rule still works well enough.
Does anybody have any insight on why the diagonal rule exists in the first place? The elimination of said rule was the only thing I liked about 4.0 (Seriously, the only thing). I've never quite been able to work it out - not that I have any real problem with it.That was one of the things I disliked about 4e.
I disliked the this about 4e as well, but my main problem can be boiled down to one word... Firecube.
In 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder a Fireball looks like this:
X X F F X X
X F F F F X
F F F F F F
F F F F F F
X F F F F X
X X F F X X
In 4.0 it looks like this:
F F F F F F
F F F F F F
F F F F F F
F F F F F F
F F F F F F
F F F F F F
Yeah, no thanks.
|
|
I'd like to point out that it's not 15 feet until you move diagonally again.
If you move three squares away diagonally you've used up 15 feet of movement.
If you move two squares diagonally and then one square up, also 15 feet. Each diagonal is technically 7.5 feet, but rounded off for simplicity.
And if you look at the reach chart on page 308 of the 3.5 DMG you can easily see the threatened squares of a reach weapon. Shame these charts didn't get into the PFRPG.
|
In my home games we've removed the diagonal rule. If I could get away with it I'd use my warhammer measuring sticks and just go from there.
I keep a wee little tape measure in my gaming box, and it is authoritative for determining long movement distances, weapon range mods, spells in/not in range, etc, or anything further than about 6 inches.
|
|
I would just house-rule that if two corner-adjacent squares are both threatened by the same creature, then moving diagonally between them provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature that threatens those squares. In other words:
XO
FXFrank (F) wants to move diagonally to the square marked O. Both squares marked X are threatened. If they are threatened by the same creature (due to a reach weapon), moving between them provokes AoO. If they are threatened by two different creatures (for example, by two orcs standing just off the northwest and southeast corners of the diagram), then moving between them does not provoke.
This is more-or-less exactly what I said in an earlier post. Though to be fair, you DID add a fancy diagram.
And with the ogre-with-reach scenario you WOULD have to travel through two threatened squares. Just because you're moving into a threatened square doesn't mean that you aren't also passing along a diagonal between corner-adjacent squares (which, by this rule, would cause your source square to be counted as threatened for that movement).A teensy bit more complicated, but it's easier to see on a board then on paper so I don't think the house-rule is that big of a deal to make the world feel more real.
@Lord Twig: I agree: DOWN WITH FIRECUBE!