Daryl MacLeod |

24 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I couldn't find where it spells this out in the rule book so I'll do my best to explain.

A medium character with 5' reach threatens all adjacent squares - including diagnals.

Does a medium character with a 10' reach weapon threaten the diagnals in the second row of squares?

I always played that they did - my new group says no because every second diagnal counts as two squares.

I know that's true for movement, but does it count for reach?

I'll try to illustrate with x's & o's. o's being the threatened squares and x being the character. Do they threaten this many;

_ooo_

ooooo

ooxoo

ooooo

_ooo_

or this many;

ooooo

ooooo

ooxoo

ooooo

ooooo

Grick |

The rules are not explicit about this issue.

Francis Kunkel wrote: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.

later...

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. :-)

Personally, I find moving at diagonals to slip through reach without provoking distasteful, so I allow an extra diagonal square of reach for medium creatures.

Raymond Lambert |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The problem is that Paizo FAILED to cover this. It was clear in the 3.5 days and was written into the rules that for the purpose of reach, the second square did not count as double. Then the 3rd, 5th, and so on did. I sincerly believe that this was not a intentional change to the rules, it was a failure by Paizo to write them in.

Think of this, an aoo can be negated by walking up to an enermy by doing so at a diagnal angel. Is that really how you want to handle it? Not all that much purpose to reach when the aoo can be negated. Think of how foolish it is to run games where your angel of approach does this.

Jezai |

http://www.pathfindersrd.com/gamemastering/combat/space-reach-threatened-ar ea-templates

Scroll down for templates.

The reason you want it to be option number 2 is because you could just walk right up to the spearman without taking AOOs by walking into his diagonals, this ruins the entire point of the spear!

Howie23 |

Clarifying the transition from 3.5 to PF on this:

The 3.5 SRD doesn't have the clarifying text that makes the 15' diagonals within reach of a reach weapon. That clarifying text was in WotC's D&D 3.5 Players Handbook, and thus was not open game content. Paizo worked forward from the SRD for some very good reasons regarding intellectual property.

I don't have the link reference, but Jason has posted that the 15' diagonals are not threatened, but that a creature moving from the 15' diagonal to the 5' diagonal provokes AoO. My take on this is that it doesn't cut it from a game mastery perspective. I use the D&D rules for reach and 15'.

Maldollen |

It's on the d20srd.org site under "Reach Weapons"

Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. 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. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

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.)

The how and why of it being absent from Pathfinder remains a mystery.

Jiggy RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter Season 9, Dedicated Voter Season 9, Dedicated Voter Season 9 |

CommandoDude |

2 people marked this as a favorite. |

No. Two diagonal squares away is fifteen feet. Not ten feet.

It's 15 feet away at its furthest. But only 7.5 at its closest. So a 10ft reach weapon can still reach INTO a diagonal two squares away. And because the rules say you occupy all 5x5ft of a square, that's pretty much the same as being 7.5 feet away.

This is why the 2nd diagonal is an exception.

Adamantine Dragon |

Adamantine Dragon wrote:No. Two diagonal squares away is fifteen feet. Not ten feet.It's 15 feet away at its furthest. But only 7.5 at its closest. So a 10ft reach weapon can still reach INTO a diagonal two squares away. And because the rules say you occupy all 5x5ft of a square, that's pretty much the same as being 7.5 feet away.

This is why the 2nd diagonal is an exception.

No. 2nd diagonal is an exception because if you don't threaten corner squares, then your spear is not useful for repelling an attacker. That's why they made the exception.

There are no provisions in the game for determining threat based on the internal geometry of a square. The exception was made purely to force incoming attackers to be subject to an attack of opportunity because that "makes sense" for a spear holder.

CommandoDude |

CommandoDude wrote:Adamantine Dragon wrote:No. Two diagonal squares away is fifteen feet. Not ten feet.It's 15 feet away at its furthest. But only 7.5 at its closest. So a 10ft reach weapon can still reach INTO a diagonal two squares away. And because the rules say you occupy all 5x5ft of a square, that's pretty much the same as being 7.5 feet away.

This is why the 2nd diagonal is an exception.

No. 2nd diagonal is an exception because if you don't threaten corner squares, then your spear is not useful for repelling an attacker. That's why they made the exception.

There are no provisions in the game for determining threat based on the internal geometry of a square. The exception was made purely to force incoming attackers to be subject to an attack of opportunity because that "makes sense" for a spear holder.

Then that would be like saying anyone with 5ft reach can't even attack someone diagonal from them. Because the corner of a diagonal is 7.5 feet away.

Adamantine Dragon |

Adamantine Dragon wrote:Then that would be like saying anyone with 5ft reach can't even attack someone diagonal from them. Because the corner of a diagonal is 7.5 feet away.CommandoDude wrote:Adamantine Dragon wrote:No. Two diagonal squares away is fifteen feet. Not ten feet.This is why the 2nd diagonal is an exception.

No. 2nd diagonal is an exception because if you don't threaten corner squares, then your spear is not useful for repelling an attacker. That's why they made the exception.

There are no provisions in the game for determining threat based on the internal geometry of a square. The exception was made purely to force incoming attackers to be subject to an attack of opportunity because that "makes sense" for a spear holder.

No. It would be like saying that "five foot reach means you can attack adjacent squares." Period. As I said there is NO PROVISION in the rules for accessing any squares based on their internal geometry. It's just AN ADJACENT SQUARE. You can't huddle in the far corner of the square to avoid being attacked.

It's a square. The mechanics are based on SQUARES, not distance.

Grick |

FAQ time. I thought the other post were FAQ'd on this, since it has come up before.

The thread quoted earlier that James Jacobs posted in was flagged for FAQ but marked Staff response: no reply required. Granted, it had a couple other questions in the topic, so maybe we'll get lucky this time.

Adamantine Dragon |

Wraith, I agree. But I understand why they do the "no reply required" thing. It's because they can claim the rules are clear without having to respond to a challenge from someone. It's essentially a "pocket veto" where they make a decision not to decide.

And, yes, I consider that to be lazy game designing.

I don't mean to be critical of the PF game designers. I think they did a much better job than the 4e game designers. And they did tackle some tough things and complete them.

But they are people. They are not indefatigable robots. And they have their own "to do" list where they are, presumably, dealing with difficult rules questions that interest them more directly. It is no surprise that there is a tendency to ignore certain things that they believe can be ignored. That happens with coworkers in my job too. Heck, if I'm totally honest, I pocket veto things at my work too. It's all about managing time.

I just have some issues with how they manage their time.

CommandoDude |

CommandoDude wrote:Adamantine Dragon wrote:Then that would be like saying anyone with 5ft reach can't even attack someone diagonal from them. Because the corner of a diagonal is 7.5 feet away.CommandoDude wrote:Adamantine Dragon wrote:No. Two diagonal squares away is fifteen feet. Not ten feet.This is why the 2nd diagonal is an exception.

No. It would be like saying that "five foot reach means you can attack adjacent squares." Period. As I said there is NO PROVISION in the rules for accessing any squares based on their internal geometry. It's just AN ADJACENT SQUARE. You can't huddle in the far corner of the square to avoid being attacked.

It's a square. The mechanics are based on SQUARES, not distance.

Except, you based your argument on the fact that 2 diagonal squares is 15ft away, not 2 squares away.

You're contradicting yourself. A reach weapon threatens 2 squares of distance, even diagonals, regardless of "feet" But you claimed the opposite.

Tarantula |

"Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach"

"Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away."

1 square doubled = 2 squares. Done. Just ignore anything about feet, and reduce it to squares.

blahpers |

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.

wraithstrike |

Wraith, I agree. But I understand why they do the "no reply required" thing. It's because they can claim the rules are clear without having to respond to a challenge from someone. It's essentially a "pocket veto" where they make a decision not to decide.

And, yes, I consider that to be lazy game designing.

I don't mean to be critical of the PF game designers. I think they did a much better job than the 4e game designers. And they did tackle some tough things and complete them.

But they are people. They are not indefatigable robots. And they have their own "to do" list where they are, presumably, dealing with difficult rules questions that interest them more directly. It is no surprise that there is a tendency to ignore certain things that they believe can be ignored. That happens with coworkers in my job too. Heck, if I'm totally honest, I pocket veto things at my work too. It's all about managing time.

I just have some issues with how they manage their time.

Some things I would understand, and I guess it is their way of trying to make Paizo its own game, but they have done it when the language was ambiguous also.

If someone ask a question that is answered in the text they quoted I get it.

Does weapon focus increase the attack bonus? -- no reply required. :)

Adamantine Dragon |

Except, you based your argument on the fact that 2 diagonal squares is 15ft away, not 2 squares away.You're contradicting yourself. A reach weapon threatens 2 squares of distance, even diagonals, regardless of "feet" But you claimed the opposite.

OK, let me try one more time.

The game mechanics are based on squares. There is a meta-game aspect of the square which is based on distance. It's not a hard and fast distance though, it's a way of breaking up the squares.

There are squares you threaten and squares you don't. The *rationale* for why you threaten or don't threaten a square is **loosely based** on distance. But that's irrelevant to the actual mechanic. It is used only to separate the set of squares you threaten from the set of squares you don't.

With the RAW interpretation of movement and reach diagonal squares two away from a character are in the set of unthreatened squares. But that allows an EXPLOIT where someone can move through the diagonal square to avoid an attack of opportunity from a 10' reach wielding weapon.

This was recognized in 3.5. So they **arbitrarily ruled** (i.e. NOT BASED ON DISTANCE) that those corner squares would be *included in the set of threatened squares* to fix the exploit.

Understand now?

Well, whether you do or not, hopefully others reading this will. No doubt you'll find some other minor point to try to leap on.

Adamantine Dragon |

IIRC reach weapons double threat range which is measured in feet not squares.

The distances are irrelevant except as a means to identify threatened squares. You can't say "7.5 foot weapons threaten corner squares but 6 foot weapons don't."

Or if you see that in the rules, point it out for me, please.

Adamantine Dragon |

This is actually covered in the CRB, but not in the PRD. The reason is, it is in the back, with the templates for spell area effects. There is nothing written, but there is a diagram for threatened squares for multiple different degrees of reach.

Right, and they did that because distance can't be used for this because of the diagonal vs horizontal issue. The only thing that matters from a "game mechanics" point of view is "is it a threatened square?" or not.

CommandoDude |

that allows an EXPLOIT where someone can move through the diagonal square to avoid an attack of opportunity from a 10' reach wielding weapon.

And I am saying there is no such exploit. Because a Reach weapon can reach into a 2nd diagonal in both terms of "Squares" and "Feet"

This was recognized in 3.5. So theyarbitrarily ruled(i.e. NOT BASED ON DISTANCE) that those corner squares would beincluded in the set of threatened squaresto fix the exploit.

It's not arbitrary because it is still based in distance. A 10ft reach weapon can reach 10 feet, that is still within the distance of a 2nd diagonal. Even if you can't reach to the edge of a 2nd diagonal (15ft) that is irrelevant, because you occupy the whole 5x5ft square, therefor you're within striking distance.

If the ruling were "arbitrarily not based on distance" then the same applies to diagonal squares for 5ft reach weapons.

Adamantine Dragon |

Adamantine Dragon wrote:that allows an EXPLOIT where someone can move through the diagonal square to avoid an attack of opportunity from a 10' reach wielding weapon.And I am saying there is no such exploit. Because a Reach weapon can reach into a 2nd diagonal in both terms of "Squares" and "Feet"

Quote:This was recognized in 3.5. So theyarbitrarily ruled(i.e. NOT BASED ON DISTANCE) that those corner squares would beincluded in the set of threatened squaresto fix the exploit.It's not arbitrary because it is still based in distance. A 10ft reach weapon can reach 10 feet, that is still within the distance of a 2nd diagonal. Even if you can't reach to the edge of a 2nd diagonal (15ft) that is irrelevant, because you occupy the whole 5x5ft square, therefor you're within striking distance.

If the ruling were "arbitrarily based on distance" then the same applies to diagonal squares for 5ft reach weapons.

Whatever. You win the internet. Congratulations.

StabbittyDoom |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I would probably make up my own mechanic to handle this one case. Call the square "pseudo-threatened".

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).

Reasoning: Pseudo-threatened squares can be used to patch "holes" in the grid system that allow enemies to approach you without provoking, despite having theoretically walked through your reach should the grid abstraction have not been there.

Now toss a pseudo-threatened square into each of those corners for the 5' natural reach + reach weapon case and call it good. As a plus side, if you defined this as a standard mechanic, you could have feats like lunge leave pseudo-threatened squares, allowing you to lunge-AoO someone when they approach to attack you, but without allowing the consequence of AoOing casters who used a 5ft step to move backward or some such.

The reason to do this is that patching the holes directly feels too weird, adding a special 15' reach case to a 10' reach scenario.

mdt |

Honestly, at home, I just keep track of the reach in feet, and I don't worry about the grid so much for it. If you move within the reach, you get AoO'd. If you don't, you don't. It's amazing how simple it works out. If there's an issue with it (from a player), I flip the map over, use the hex map on the other side, and then call each hex a '5 foot area' and done with it. :)

I honestly prefer hex maps anyway.

Grick |

a Reach weapon can reach into a 2nd diagonal in both terms of "Squares" and "Feet"

With 10' speed, I can't move 2 diagonal squares away.

With 10' reach, I can't hit something 2 diagonal squares away.

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

This leaves the reach gap Adamantine Dragon is talking about.

The 3.5 exception was specifically an exception.

3.5 Reach Weapons: "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.*)"

If the ruling were "arbitrarily not based on distance" then the same applies to diagonal squares for 5ft reach weapons.

Except the first diagonal is 5 feet away. Thus, by distance, 5' reach threatens that square. It's also called out specifically:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).

Adamantine Dragon |

Honestly, at home, I just keep track of the reach in feet, and I don't worry about the grid so much for it. If you move within the reach, you get AoO'd. If you don't, you don't. It's amazing how simple it works out. If there's an issue with it (from a player), I flip the map over, use the hex map on the other side, and then call each hex a '5 foot area' and done with it. :)

I honestly prefer hex maps anyway.

For the first 20 years of my gaming I almost exclusively used hex maps. This was one reason why. But hex maps have their own symmetry issues.

I think I moved back to square grids when 3.0 came out since they had integrated the battlegrid much more directly into the rules.

Adamantine Dragon |

CommandoDude wrote:a Reach weapon can reach into a 2nd diagonal in both terms of "Squares" and "Feet"With 10' speed, I can't move 2 diagonal squares away.

With 10' reach, I can't hit something 2 diagonal squares away.

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

This leaves the reach gap Adamantine Dragon is talking about.

The 3.5 exception was specifically an exception.

3.5 Reach Weapons: "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.)"CommandoDude wrote:If the ruling were "arbitrarily not based on distance" then the same applies to diagonal squares for 5ft reach weapons.Except the first diagonal is 5 feet away. Thus, by distance, 5' reach threatens that square. It's also called out specifically:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).

Thanks Grick, but Commando already has the plaque. He won fair and square.

Grick |

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).

Scenario:

An orc charges a polearm wielding fighter on the diagonal. When the orc provokes by leaving the square 15' from the fighter, the fighter uses greater trip as his AoO.

Which square does the orc fall in? The square he was leaving, or the square adjacent to the fighter?

Does the fighter get to take the AoO granted by improved trip, even though he doesn't threaten either of those squares, because the AoO is not caused by movement and thus the pseudo-threatened square doesn't help? When the orc stands up, provoking an AoO, can the fighter take that AoO? Are all of those considered consequences of movement? What if the fighter had a readied action to hit the orc before it moved?

As a plus side, if you defined this as a standard mechanic, you could have feats like lunge leave pseudo-threatened squares, allowing you to lunge-AoO someone when they approach to attack you, but without allowing the consequence of AoOing casters who used a 5ft step to move backward or some such.

In the extremely rare case when someone has a readied action to leave a square during your turn.

Howie23 |

It's on the d20srd.org site under "Reach Weapons"

Reach Weapons wrote:The how and why of it being absent from Pathfinder remains a mystery.Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. 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. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

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.)

I appreciate that it's on d20srd.org. The editors of that site have made the choice of modifying the SRD based upon language specific to D&D 3.5. The text you bolded is not found in the SRD, which is located here.

The SRD reads: "Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. Most reach 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. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away."

Note the lack of the note that explains the exception; this is the text Paizo built upon in creating PF. They didn't use d20srd.org's edited version.

Lab_Rat |

The major problem with the diagonal being 15ft put still provoking at 10ft (some half-way distance between two squares) is that the reach rules are written using distance in ft. and the provoking of an attack of opportunity is written using squares. So...

At 15 ft I leave the square and since it's not threatened I do not provoke even though I pass through your reach. By RAW it makes no sense, but since most of my play right now is PFS I have to rule it this way.

I really would like to see this FAQ'd and hopefully straitened out.

StabbittyDoom |

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).Scenario:

An orc charges a polearm wielding fighter on the diagonal. When the orc provokes by leaving the square 15' from the fighter, the fighter uses greater trip as his AoO.

Which square does the orc fall in? The square he was leaving, or the square adjacent to the fighter?

Does the fighter get to take the AoO granted by improved trip, even though he doesn't threaten either of those squares, because the AoO is not caused by movement and thus the pseudo-threatened square doesn't help? When the orc stands up, provoking an AoO, can the fighter take that AoO? Are all of those considered consequences of movement? What if the fighter had a readied action to hit the orc before it moved?

StabbittyDoom wrote:As a plus side, if you defined this as a standard mechanic, you could have feats like lunge leave pseudo-threatened squares, allowing you to lunge-AoO someone when they approach to attack you, but without allowing the consequence of AoOing casters who used a 5ft step to move backward or some such.In the extremely rare case when someone has a readied action to leave a square during your turn.

While odd, they would fall in the 15ft away square. This may look odd, but it's less odd than skipping your threatened area entirely. He would get the AoO for him falling because that falls under "consequences of that movement, including attacks of opportunity". The AoO from being tripped is a consequence of his AoO from tripping, which is in turn a consequence of the movement (and the actions are treated as simultaneous by the rules). This means that it's still treated as a real threatened square until the AoO-chain resolves. This could be clarified. They would not, however, get the AoO for him standing. Again, odd, but much better than charging past the spear without any risk of AoO (which defeats the purpose of the spear's reach). I can see someone knocking down a person at the edge of their reach who attempt to approach, the person doing a quick 1-ft roll and standing when outside the reach, and having none of this be fully "outside" the gridline drawn around that square that is considered 15ft away.

Note that my definition was not meant to be a final draft, but an idea.

My reference to lunge had a forgotten "and make lunge last your turn, but only with pseudo-threaten when outside your turn" part to it.

Again, while not perfect, the pseudo-threatened squares idea is certainly better than the normal alternatives. It is more complex, but I believe it could be written simply enough to avoid being an issue.

Daryl MacLeod |

This is actually covered in the CRB, but not in the PRD. The reason is, it is in the back, with the templates for spell area effects. There is nothing written, but there is a diagram for threatened squares for multiple different degrees of reach.

Page number? My core rule book only has spell areas on page 215 and the 10' radius for a spell area does not include the diagnals.

CommandoDude |

CommandoDude wrote:a Reach weapon can reach into a 2nd diagonal in both terms of "Squares" and "Feet"With 10' speed, I can't move 2 diagonal squares away.

Movement =/= Reach.

With 10' reach, I can't hit something 2 diagonal squares away.

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

A square is also 7.5x7.5 feet across from each corner.

The second diagonal is only 7.5 feet away. You can "Reach" into almost half the space of the second diagonal.

It is not 15 feet away.

DrDeth |

Maldollen wrote:It's on the d20srd.org site under "Reach Weapons"

Reach Weapons wrote:The how and why of it being absent from Pathfinder remains a mystery.Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. 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. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

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.)

I appreciate that it's on d20srd.org. The editors of that site have made the choice of modifying the SRD based upon language specific to D&D 3.5. The text you bolded is not found in the SRD, which is located here.

The SRD reads: "Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. Most reach 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. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away."

Note the lack of the note that explains the exception; this is the text Paizo built upon in creating...

But here's the funny thing then. A Reach weapon "allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her".

So then:

00x00

x000x

x0*0x

x000x

00x00

Really? A reach weapon can only hit the x's not the 0? So, in other words, with a reach weapon, based upon that reasoning you can;t attack along a diagonal at all. Not next to you- it's adjacent. Not the square after, it's 15'!

But see, clearly that is wrong. A reach weapon doesn't turn you into a rook/castle, unable to attack along a diagonal.

Still, no matter what they say, this does call for a FAQ. It's rather obvious what the RAI is to me, but yes, the wording could be better.

Tarantula |

Hmmm. Since people keep using spell radius in this debate, I'm going to try to show that spell radius and reach is not analogous..

Lets see if this works...

First spells, which center on grid intersections:

5' spell radius:

████

████

████

████

10' spell radius:

████

████

████

████

Now reach:

5' creature with 5' reach:

█████

█████

██C██

█████

█████

5' creature with 10' reach (no diagonals):

█████

█████

██C██

█████

█████

And last, 5' creature with 10' reach (with diagonals):

█████

█████

██C██

█████

█████

Oddly enough, with 10' Large(tall) Creatures they also have holes on the diagonal to be approached from (no diagonals):

██████

██████

██CC██

██CC██

██████

██████

But, give them a reach weapon and finally no more holes. Does it make sense that only things with a 15'+ reach don't have holes in their threatened range when attacked diagonally?

██████████

██████████

██████████

██████████

████CC████

████CC████

██████████

██████████

██████████

██████████

Personally, I fill in the diagonals, and I expect that if they ever decide to errata this, they will add a sentence to fill in the diagonals.

Set |

mdt wrote:I honestly prefer hex maps anyway.For the first 20 years of my gaming I almost exclusively used hex maps. This was one reason why. But hex maps have their own symmetry issues.

GURPS in college spoiled me with the hex maps. Painful for mapping, at times, but placing spells was so much simpler than the way it works with squares, where you have to center some spells on a square, and others on a vertex, and do all sorts of funky stuff with cones...

CBDunkerson |

I've never gotten the whole 'squares' thing. Haven't people heard of rulers? Or string? Or math? Wargaming handled precise movements and ranges just fine without basing them on map squares (or even HAVING map squares in some cases) long before RPGs came around. So why this clunky and imprecise squares method?

Captain Moonscar |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I've never gotten the whole 'squares' thing. Haven't people heard of rulers? Or string? Or math? Wargaming handled precise movements and ranges just fine without basing them on map squares (or even HAVING map squares in some cases) long before RPGs came around. So why this clunky and imprecise squares method?

**Answer**: All of those thing slow the pace of the game. Squares and Hexes are faster.

Our table has always ruled reach weapons as the exception to diagional distance.

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.

You would think after awhile the wisards would wonder why all of their *Fireball's* look like they were made of building blocks? No?

-Flash