Hello, Guest! | Sign In | My Account | Shopping Cart | Help/FAQ Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games
 About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Paizo
Community
Store

# Reach weapon & threatened squares

### Rules Questions

 51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whats the alternative?

I charge the spearman from the north

You'll get an attack of opportunity

Ok *turns the compass 45 degrees* "Now i can do it safely!"

StabbittyDoom wrote:

Definition: A pseudo-threatened square is just barely outside of your reach, leaving you so tantalizingly close to taking advantage of your opponent's openings you can practically taste it. Sadly, however, you are not considered as threatening this square *except* in the case where the opponent moves from a pseudo-threatened square to an adjacent square that is closer to you than the pseudo-threatened square. In this case, the pseudo-threatened square is treated as a threatened square for the purposes of resolving any and all consequences of that movement (including attacks of opportunity).

...and except when attacking on their turn
Reason:
Reach fighters probably want to stay outside the range of a closer ranged enemy cause they want them to cause AoOs. Picture this ideal situation: Your enemy is within your range but you are outside of his. You full attack him and do a 5 fooet step away, as a result he cannot 5 foot step to you. In most situations a reach fighter should be able to do this without using the double diagonal but he should also be able to do this that way, eh?
Nice definition btw.
Grick wrote:

A square is 5 feet. The second diagonal square is 15 feet away.

I'll try to explain CommandoDudes argument to you as far as I understand it.

Point is, you are thinking gamewise, the board game part of PF. This is reasonable since combat rules, at least the RAW, behave like a board game. He thinks about the situation as a RL situation.
The "second diagonal square counts double" rule is as we know a mean to simulate euclidean distance - going diagonal is about 1.5 as long as going straight (sqrt(2) to be precise which is more like 1.4) and because we do not want to track 2.5 feet distances, we simply ignore the .5 every odd time. He does not apply this simplification for his argument, he really thinks in the distance you can measure on your table.
Imho that's not a very good argument of his since a weapon that can reach the center of a square 2 squares straight ahead can barely scratch the corner of a square 2 squares diagonal ahead by euclidean distance. Tough it'd be a good explanation for pseudo threatened squares.

I wonder if any of these comments are helping people understand why 4e redefined the battle grid so that diagonal travel and horizontal travel are the same.

It's because that solves "problems" like this.

Ah yeah, the old board game balance vs realism issue...

Captain Moonscar wrote:

When problems like this arrise we imagine there is no grid and use logic. Some times we don't even use a map if the encounter it simple enough or if we can't use it like when party members are 200+ft apart.

Here's one guy who understood rule #1.

blahpers wrote:

I wonder if any of these comments are helping people understand why 4e redefined the battle grid so that diagonal travel and horizontal travel are the same.

It's because that solves "problems" like this.

And creates different ones, naturally.

I like the idea that the 2xdiagonal square is threatened if the opponent attempts to move from it to a square a full 5' closer than the weapon's maximum reach. I haven't tested how well that works with longer reach weapons though.

It doesn't. The rule that 10' reach weapons threaten at corners was an exception for that specific case, so it didn't change the rules for 10' reach nor for reach weapons in general.

I want to point out the nerf this does when fighting on a map where a tunnel is not horizontal or vertical but diagonal. Now, if you don't use the old exception like I do,  the reach person cannot attack two squares away with reach just because the damn map put the tunnel on a diagonal instead of vertical or horizontal.

I do not recall how often I see diagonal tunnels but I hate with a passion how many maps in PFSOP have diagonals on them from bushes or cave walls. If they want to use a square grid, I wish they would make up their mind about what each square contains. I loath squares that are half and half squares. Seeing them so often upsets me. This is also why I do not like the paizo maps with a blank square grid on one side and predawn square grid on the other. I like my maps to be blank square on one side and blank hex on the other.

At the very least, I would think reach should threaten for the purposes of movement, but possibly not for other actions which could be >10ft away (like casting).

Archaeik wrote:
At the very least, I would think reach should threaten for the purposes of movement, but possibly not for other actions which could be >10ft away (like casting).

It really should threaten period. Not as an 'exception' but rather for a general rule.

If you happen to draw a corridor diagonally it is not any different for the characters.. yet suddenly the spear cannot attack? What happens when they charge?

Either they need to threaten the square adjacent diagonally or 2 diagonals away. By the rules it cannot be the adjacent square so you must allow the other.

Parsing the rules that are trying to represent a simulation in such a way that the simulation completely fails is a failure on the reader.

-James

james maissen wrote:
Parsing the rules that are trying to represent a simulation in such a way that the simulation completely fails is a failure on the reader.

Are you saying the rules currently say you threaten the 2nd diagonal, or just that doing so is the only reasonable way to run it?

I've always just ruled that reach (natural or otherwise) fills full squares (no notches in the corners). I think this was always the intent with reach.

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal though, and should be simple enough for the Dev's to straighten out: "Reach fills corners as always intended. Reach is not movement and not subject to the diagonal movement rules." End of controversy.

Quote:
If you happen to draw a corridor diagonally it is not any different for the characters.. yet suddenly the spear cannot attack? What happens when they charge?

If the rules remain intent on defining "diagonal" as 7.5ft taking the 1st as 5ft and the 2nd as 15ft, then yes, they should be limited by how the map was drawn.

The simple solution to this problem is to orient the squares so that the hallway is no longer diagonal. (The grid is already arbitrary)

Grick wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Parsing the rules that are trying to represent a simulation in such a way that the simulation completely fails is a failure on the reader.

Are you saying the rules currently say you threaten the 2nd diagonal, or just that doing so is the only reasonable way to run it?

I'm saying both, so exactly that.

While it takes 15ft of movement to move to a square two diagonals away, that is the distance you need to move to fully occupy said square.. not to reach something occupying it.

Obviously a reach weapon needs to be able to attack in a circle around it. Likewise obviously a character charging with a reach weapon (say along a diagonal) doesn't cause the world to crash in a logical fallacy.

This is supported by the rules as well (on p195):

Quote:
A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it.

Now if a creature with 10' reach did not threaten 2 diagonals away, then this would be false.

I don't see where the rules expressly state you cannot attack 2 diagonals away with 10ft reach. Yet I do see how things fall apart if you accept this and how some passages in the rules would be false.

It seems to me as if you cannot deny a medium reach weapon from attacking 2 diagonals away. The fact that this was expressly stated in 3.5 (just not in the SRD) should put the nail in the coffin.

-James

What about large creatures with 10+ ft of natural reach do they threaten the corners?
What about large+ creatures with reach weapons?

This is why Hex Maps are better.

 51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>