Just to throw this out there,
The Pole Arm Master alternate fighter class features the ability to fight with a reach weapon at close quarters.
as a swift action you can alter the grip on your polearm and fight an adjacent foe with a -2 penalty on your attack rolls.
This would allow you, in a full round action with multiple attacks, to hit a foe at 10', then tighten your grip and strike a foe next to you with your next attack(s).
Very nice feature. Advanced players guide.
|
Stuff about second diagonal
I think the point he was trying to make with the second diagonal being both 10 & 15 feet is not to argue that someone with a spear should be able to hit a bad guy in the second diagonal, but rather that such a character would be able to receive an AoO against someone moving through the second diagonal into the adjacent diagonal. As you pointed out, those two diagonals count as 3 squares (15 feet) of distance; at some point when moving from the second diagonal to the adjacent diagonal, the bad guy is going to have to cross that 10 foot threshold that the spear-wielder is able to hit.
Now, to clarify the point I'm trying to make: if a bad guy is standing in the second diagonal and makes a 5-foot step into the adjacent diagonal, the spear-wielder would not be able to make an AoO any more than if the bad guy was making such a move from a cardinal direction. On the other hand, if the bad guy starts his move on a square beyond the second diagonal (the third diagonal, for example) and has to move THROUGH the second diagonal into the first diagonal, then the spear-wielder would be able to make an AoO.
This is the most common-sense way to interpret a hole in the rules that, quite frankly, the developers don't have the room available to write out and explain in the CRB. (But the FAQ would be the perfect place for such a clarification).
Hexes reduce the number of creatures that can be in position to attack another (from 8 down to 6 at 5'). This in turn reduces the number of characters that can be flanking. Neither of these is really an 'issue'. The real issue is with larger sized creatures. How many hexes does a large creature take - 4 grid squares or ? hexes. 7 is really closer to to huge size. Anything less than 7 (except 3) does weird things with which hexes are actually occupied.
So hexes do NOT cause issues with flanking (they change it slightly). But would require adjusting the rules to which hexes a larger creature occupies - a pretty insignificant hurdle.
|
|
Just to throw this out there,
The Pole Arm Master alternate fighter class features the ability to fight with a reach weapon at close quarters.
as a swift action you can alter the grip on your polearm and fight an adjacent foe with a -2 penalty on your attack rolls.
This would allow you, in a full round action with multiple attacks, to hit a foe at 10', then tighten your grip and strike a foe next to you with your next attack(s).
Actually, it is a bit better than that. It is an immediate action to alter the grip, not a swift action; so the polearm master can change his grip from reach to adjacent on an opponent's turn as well. Also, the ability does not indicate that the polearm is used in any way other than normal (except for the penalty to attack rolls)...meaning that it is not used as an improvised weapon. For other characters, I would rule that using the haft as an improvised weapon would effectively be a club, so would not benefit from feats and abilities related to the polearm.
Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets. This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery.
Oi, the old squares vs distance debate... this one could go on for a while. Great job to Grick, he's always on top of things keeping the history of things intact :)
For the Original Poster: I suggest you get the character some armor spikes (weapons), they allow you to threaten the area (& attack) 5ft around you while you use your reach weapon.
Anyway, since I'm one of the only ones talking about using Improvised Weapons here, you could likely use the Improvised Weapon Rule to use your reach weapon... in an improvised manner. Many weapons (arrows, etc) lay out rules for their improvisation, but are they the limit to improvisation?
Improvised Weapons:
Based on the following text for the monk of the Empty Hand from the APG, it
Monk of the Empty Hand (APG)
The monk of the empty hand eschews normal weapons in favor of whatever is lying around—rocks, chair legs, flagons of ale, even a simple quill pen all become deadly weapons in the hands of such a monk. A monk of the empty hand draws on his own ki to infuse his improvised weapons with power, and can transform a broken bottle into a magical weapon.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Monks of the empty hand are proficient with the shuriken only. A monk of the empty hand treats normal weapons as improvised weapons with the following equivalencies (substituting all of their statistics for the listed weapon): a light weapon functions as a light hammer, a one-handed weapon functions as a club, and a two-handed weapon functions as a quarterstaff. This replaces the normal monk weapon proficiencies.[/i]
So I put forth the question: is the improvisatial of weapons limited to the Monk of the Empty Hand or not? Some people have mixed feelings on the subject
For other characters, I would rule that using the haft as an improvised weapon would effectively be a club, so would not benefit from feats and abilities related to the polearm.
Agreed. Except... what if it's a magical polearm with special abilities, or things like weapon focus come into play? We come up to a lot of odd questions regarding what abilities can be utilized. Sort of the problematic underbelly with improvised weapons that are already weapons.
I think the point he was trying to make with the second diagonal being both 10 & 15 feet is not to argue that someone with a spear should be able to hit a bad guy in the second diagonal, but rather that such a character would be able to receive an AoO against someone moving through the second diagonal into the adjacent diagonal.
In order to do so, the longspear user must be making an attack into either the adjacent square or the square 15' away. This makes things awkward in corner cases, like tripping. If you simply threaten the 2nd diagonal, then the attack happens in the second diagonal before the character has moved. If you threaten a 10' boundary instead of actual squares, then the character has actually moved 5' before the trip happens, meaning he's lost the whole move action due to being interrupted. It also gets weird into which square he falls in, and what other opponents may threaten that square if the happens to provoke while falling prone, or getting up.
Personally, I think simply granting the 2nd diagonal to medium reach weapons is a much better fix.
|
Hexes reduce the number of creatures that can be in position to attack another (from 8 down to 6 at 5'). This in turn reduces the number of characters that can be flanking. Neither of these is really an 'issue'. The real issue is with larger sized creatures. How many hexes does a large creature take - 4 grid squares or ? hexes. 7 is really closer to to huge size. Anything less than 7 (except 3) does weird things with which hexes are actually occupied.
So hexes do NOT cause issues with flanking (they change it slightly). But would require adjusting the rules to which hexes a larger creature occupies - a pretty insignificant hurdle.
If that's the "flanking issue," then I agree that it isn't a meaningful issue. In my experience, 3-hex Large creatures work best.
-Skeld
If that's the "flanking issue," then I agree that it isn't a meaningful issue. In my experience, 3-hex Large creatures work best.-Skeld
Actually thinking about this more, there is a flanking issue that can come up.
Given a 5' wide hallway that is not hex aligned it is possible to have 3 creatures in the hallway and have the creature in the middle technically not be flanked because of the hex alignment. Common sense *should* prevail in this case - but that's a bit harder to write into the rules to explain all the exception cases when a character is flanking when the default of being opposite a flanking partner doesn't fit.
Hexes reduce the number of creatures that can be in position to attack another (from 8 down to 6 at 5'). This in turn reduces the number of characters that can be flanking. Neither of these is really an 'issue'. The real issue is with larger sized creatures. How many hexes does a large creature take - 4 grid squares or ? hexes. 7 is really closer to to huge size. Anything less than 7 (except 3) does weird things with which hexes are actually occupied.
So hexes do NOT cause issues with flanking (they change it slightly). But would require adjusting the rules to which hexes a larger creature occupies - a pretty insignificant hurdle.
If that's the "flanking issue," then I agree that it isn't a meaningful issue. In my experience, 3-hex Large creatures work best.
-Skeld
The real issue with hexes, as far as I've been able to tell, is walls and corners. People don't build wavy walls, which leads to weird tactical situations or half hexes...
|
|
The real issue with hexes, as far as I've been able to tell, is walls and corners. People don't build wavy walls, which leads to weird tactical situations or half hexes...Hexes reduce the number of creatures that can be in position to attack another (from 8 down to 6 at 5'). This in turn reduces the number of characters that can be flanking. Neither of these is really an 'issue'. The real issue is with larger sized creatures. How many hexes does a large creature take - 4 grid squares or ? hexes. 7 is really closer to to huge size. Anything less than 7 (except 3) does weird things with which hexes are actually occupied.
So hexes do NOT cause issues with flanking (they change it slightly). But would require adjusting the rules to which hexes a larger creature occupies - a pretty insignificant hurdle.
If that's the "flanking issue," then I agree that it isn't a meaningful issue. In my experience, 3-hex Large creatures work best.
-Skeld
This does not deter my irrational love of hexes. Maybe it's a HeroScape thing.....
-Skeld
I like that we're having a Hex discussion now as opposed to a Reach discussion. Regarding the Hallway thing, and the funky stuff about non hex-aligned halls and such, as well as how one flanks a 3-hex large creature, it's harder to explain. AoO and Flanking rules are misinterpreted enough as it is, add that to it, and people will try to flank a large creature with 4 other characters cause it looks like it should work, and the debates would be a nightmare!
I've seen in a few threads that reach weapons can't be used to hit targets at the second diagonal, but they get the three square in front, to the side, and behind, but not the diagonal. WHat they do get to do is hit a creature that comes in from 15 to 5 cause otherwise it would be dumb.
|
Now, to clarify the point I'm trying to make: if a bad guy is standing in the second diagonal and makes a 5-foot step into the adjacent diagonal, the spear-wielder would not be able to make an AoO any more than if the bad guy was making such a move from a cardinal direction. On the other hand, if the bad guy starts his move on a square beyond the second diagonal (the third diagonal, for example) and has to move THROUGH the second diagonal into the first diagonal, then the spear-wielder would be able to make an AoO.
This is the most common-sense way to interpret a hole in the rules that, quite frankly, the developers don't have the room available to write out and explain in the CRB. (But the FAQ would be the perfect place for such a clarification).
As I was reading this discussion I thought the same thing. I think it's a good compromise.
To summarize the house rule (or is it a rule interpretation?): AOOs with a (10') reach weapon into a square two diagonals away are only given when the opponent moves from that square into the adjacent diagonal square, but not as part of a 5' step. Other moves out of the two-diagonal square do not provoke an AOO with a (10') reach weapon.
I like it!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've got official clarification on how this works.
So just because the grid has a square for "15 feet away" and a square for "5 feet away," but no square for "10 feet away," using that corner path doesn't mean you're magically teleporting from 15 feet to 5 feet; you are passing through a 10-foot-radius band around the creature, and therefore you provoke an AOO.
So you threaten the 2nd diagonal square for purposes of AoOs caused by movement directly toward the reach weapon wielder?
Someone can stand in the 2nd diagonal (15' away) and cast, use ranged weapons, etc. and not provoke, they can move around away from or perpendicular to you and not provoke, it's only when they move into the adjacent square that they're leaving the phantom 10' square which provokes.
And the phantom 10' square is part of the 15' square, so a creature tripped by the AoO could then stand up without provoking.
And the reason for all this is that the intent behind "moving out of a threatened square" is that it should instead say "moving through a threatened area" or something (defining it as a band of threat, rather than squares).
Do I have this correct?
Grick: That sounds right, yes.