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

# Ending movement with a Diagonal

### Rules Questions

 51 to 100 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The problem is that, in order to be eligible to take that AoO, you have to threaten the square.

Is the best solution one that requires the Attack of Opportunity section to be reworked from the ground up? Or is the better solution just going back to the 3.5 wording of reach weapons?

I know which one I favour!

 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The problem is that, in order to be eligible to take that AoO, you have to threaten the square.

The problem is that, when a developer comes in and says how it works, some people ignore them.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
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?

Jiggy wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The problem is that, in order to be eligible to take that AoO, you have to threaten the square.
The problem is that, when a developer comes in and says how it works, some people ignore them.

If a dev had said how it works, there wouldn't be a problem!

Which square is the creature in when it provokes? Did the dev say that?

Is this an exception to the 'threatened squares' rule? Did the dev say that?

We know exactly how AoOs interact with threatened squares, but this 'solution' does not tell us what we need to know, just that he thinks that moving from 15 feet to 5 feet should provoke! And of course it should! No-one disagrees with that, and I'm glad we have dev acknowledgement of that. But we need to know, in detail, how it works.

We can come up with our own solutions, but it'd be nice to know how the devs do it; is it something like the solution just suggested by Grick? Do they use the 3.5 wording of reach?

We'd all like to know! Even you.

 Designer

Grick: That sounds right, yes.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Grick: That sounds right, yes.

Man, that's complicated, but seems to work consistently.

OFOOO
OOOXO
OOZOO -edit- non-ASCII version
OOOOO
YOOOO

Creature in square X takes a move action towards Y. When he moves out of square Z, he provokes from Y, who uses greater trip. He provokes and falls in square Z.

Y can take the AoO from greater trip, because the creature is still in the phantom square, and hasn't fallen in square Z yet (creature not prone).

A creature in square F also has a reach weapon, but cannot take the AoO from the greater trip, since it happened while the creature occupied the phantom square.

After the AoO is resolved, the creature is prone in square Z. He stands up, provoking. Y cannot take an AoO, but F can.

I think at my tables I'll just have reach threaten the square, because there's really no chance of being able to explain all that.

Grick, I agree with all that, especially the last line!

BTW, how did you get SKR to answer your summons? Was it like 1st ed AD&D, where if you mention a Devil Lord by name there was a flat 1% chance he would appear? Boy, did I see that abused back in the day!

Or was it like saying 'Hastur' three times? How many times did you have to say 'SKR! SKR! SKR!' before he appeared? : )

re: the 'where do they land when they trip' question, i think the RAW for 'accidentally ending movement in a non-valid square' would reasonably cover this case, and mean that they are moved to their last valid square. (so what people have said, but with a bit more rules justification)

the 3.5 wording exempting weapon reach meant large reach areas are square not 'circular'. in a way, that is simpler than tracking semi-circular reach, but it feels wierd so i can see why it was changed.

The diagonal rule is to account for the fact that with a 30 ft. movement, and 5 ft. squares, you move 30 feet if you move in a straight line, but if you go diagonal, you cover that same 30 feet in 4 squares, so 1 diagonal (5), second diagonal (15), diagonal (20), diagonal (30).

This makes some sense when chaining these together, but feels weird, as you noticed, when there is movement between diagonals. That's because you are discounting the extra 2.5 feet you moved in the beginning, and the game treats moving into a square in the same way as it does moving through a square. The idea, is that you move from the center of the "tile" to the center of the next one.

If you don't like the abstraction, you can switch to hexes, which remove the weird rule because you're moving the same amount of distance regardless of how you're moving. Conversely, you could change to tactical movement (a la Warhammer and the like) where you use a play area without a grid and instead use a tape measure or ruler, counting 1 inch as 5 ft. (assuming you use standard-sized minis). For the purpose of threatened space, just measure out from the mini's edge.

I liked using the measuring method, especially for AoOs, because it becomes harder to eyeball safe movement, which feels more realistic (combat tends to be a bit too hectic to be constantly paying attention to whether you are getting JUST too close to your enemy a lot of the time) but it slows the game down.

I'd use hexes if I could get my hands on some better hex map stuff (don't think they sell hex-marked white boards).

Chernobyl wrote:
Oh how I wish Pathfinder used Hex grids. SOOOO much simpler.

You know...nothing actually really stops you from using the hex grid. I use it when I forget my normal map at home because the game store has a store hex grid that can be barrowed...but not the normal grid one for some off reason.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It still seems like instead of the "phantom square" rule, it would be simpler to reinstate the 2 square rule for reach , rather than counting the distance. it is overly complicated , and most people aren't even aware of the change, and the game has been on the market for what 5+ years now?

I realize a developer has said how it works, and that the world doesn't fit into neat 5' squares all the time. But this was working fine with the extended 3.5 rules. It only became a problem when some of the text regarding reach was noticed to be absent. Rather than reinstate the old text, a new ruling on the existing rules was given. One that's just as confusing and confounding, if not more, than the original rules for reach before Pathfinder.

I think most people are going to continue to want to see the logic in using the 3.5 exception, rather than the new reach exception in their home games, and not everyone in pathfinder society will even be aware reach has changed. I'm an avid gamer, i'm active on the forums, have been playing since pathfinder was released, and *I* never noticed it until today.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cold Napalm wrote:
Chernobyl wrote:
Oh how I wish Pathfinder used Hex grids. SOOOO much simpler.
You know...nothing actually really stops you from using the hex grid. I use it when I forget my normal map at home because the game store has a store hex grid that can be barrowed...but not the normal grid one for some off reason.

10' rooms reaally don't fit in a hex grid. they make drawing out the map that much trickier. and you end up with a lot of "half-hexes".

 Designer

I agree that using the 3.5 rule is simpler and easier to understand, but I don't think it's a good idea to start changing rules in the Core Rulebook if they're not actually errors.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

keep it in mind for Pathfinder 2nd edition (if ever), i guess.

square threat areas do seem to look wierder and wierder when you have gargantuan or very large creatures/ reach weapons.
but they are easier to use in pretty much every aspect... ?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Class Decks, Maps, Modules Subscriber

it's only the 10' reach templates that are the issue. Reinstating the 3.5 exception for those only is clearer, keeps thinks more compatible in reasonable ways, and incidentally requires WAY less explanation.

I (and apparently many others) consider the fact that that text wasn't included in the CRB an error, so.... changing it is reasonable.

I will continue using the 3.5 exception in my games.

- Gauss

The "3.5 rule" is mentioned a few times, but could anyone explain how it works there?

Quatar:

PHB p137 wrote:
However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons (such as a longspear) threaten more squares than a typical creature. For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens 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.)

In short: Diagonal distance is normally counted a 5' for the first diagonal and 10' for the second diagonal (total of 15'). This would put the second square out of reach of reach weapons. As a result reach weapons cannot attack adjacent targets and they cannot attack the corners of the second square away. Something many of us feel is silly. The 3.5 exception (bolded above) corrects this. It surprised me when I did not see it in PF. Apparently it surprises many people and until today d20PFSRD had incorrect templates based on the old 3.5 rule.

I have created a poll to see how many people still use the exception. LINK

- Gauss

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I agree that using the 3.5 rule is simpler and easier to understand, but I don't think it's a good idea to start changing rules in the Core Rulebook if they're not actually errors.

But, it is an error already, isn't it?

I mean, you already need to change "moving out of a threatened square" to "moving through a threatened area" because the square isn't actually threatened, just the area between the squares (hence the 'phantom' square).

And if you're changing the core rules anyway, why not change them in a way that is simpler and easier to understand?

This issue comes up all the time, so at least a FAQ entry summing up how it works would be easier to direct people toward instead of this thread with your response and the consequences of that response on different pages.

 Designer

It's not an error--that would be the text giving you wrong information. It's just unclear.

And I don't do FAQs any more. If you think it needs a FAQ, flag it and Jason will get to it.

 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And I don't do FAQs any more.

But you're my favorite! How come you don't do FAQs anymore?

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
It's not an error--that would be the text giving you wrong information. It's just unclear.

I don't see how it's not, since you can't attack into that square, which means you don't threaten the square, yet moving out of that square provokes. I understand the intent, and the real-world logic, I just don't see that what the rules currently say can mean that. This seems to be my failing, rather than the book. Thanks for the response!

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And I don't do FAQs any more.

Hopefully this is because you're too busy working on awesome new stuff to buy, rather than due to feeling overwhelmed by our voracious (and often impolite) demands.

Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hold the phone here.

Are we saying that in Pathfinder RPG, the typically square "reach" threat range allows a caster to cast and a prone to stand up, provided they are in the far corners?

Pax Veritas wrote:
Are we saying that in Pathfinder RPG, the typically square "reach" threat range allows a caster to cast and a prone to stand up, provided they are in the far corners?

Ten-foot reach only threatens the 2nd diagonal for movement directly towards the threatener.

Take a look at this image. If "Z" is a human with a longspear, he doesn't threaten X, because X is five feet away. He also doesn't threaten "Y" because he's fifteen feet away. He only threatens "F" who is ten feet away. (Assuming no improved unarmed strike, natural weapons, etc.)

However, if "Y" moves directly towards our friend "Z", not taking a 5' step (say he started further away), he will provoke when he attempts to leave that square, even though the square is 15' away, because he moves through Z's threatened area which is a phantom square between them.

Y can cast spells, drink potions, and do anything he wants in that square without provoking, it's only movement directly towards Z that provokes.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I agree that using the 3.5 rule is simpler and easier to understand, but I don't think it's a good idea to start changing rules in the Core Rulebook if they're not actually errors.

I fail to see how your recent responses to Grick are any different from how the v3.5 rules already operated.

Ravingdork wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I agree that using the 3.5 rule is simpler and easier to understand, but I don't think it's a good idea to start changing rules in the Core Rulebook if they're not actually errors.
I fail to see how your recent responses to Grick are any different from how the v3.5 rules already operated.

Using my terrible example image, in 3.5 "Z" would threaten Y with a longspear.

In PFRPG, "Z" doesn't threaten "Y" unless Y moves directly towards Z (without using a 5' step). If this happens, then Z threatens Y and can take an AoO when Y tries to leave the blue square. But for any other purpose, including AoOs as a result of that AoO (Greater Trip) Z doesn't threaten.

If Y did provoke, and Z greater tripped him, Z can't take the extra AoO from greater trip, nor can he hit Y when he stands back up. Using the 3.5 exception, he could do both.

Grick wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I agree that using the 3.5 rule is simpler and easier to understand, but I don't think it's a good idea to start changing rules in the Core Rulebook if they're not actually errors.
I fail to see how your recent responses to Grick are any different from how the v3.5 rules already operated.

Using my terrible example image, in 3.5 "Z" would threaten Y with a longspear.

In PFRPG, "Z" doesn't threaten "Y" unless Y moves directly towards Z (without using a 5' step). If this happens, then Z threatens Y and can take an AoO when Y tries to leave the blue square. But for any other purpose, including AoOs as a result of that AoO (Greater Trip) Z doesn't threaten.

If Y did provoke, and Z greater tripped him, Z can't take the extra AoO from greater trip, nor can he hit Y when he stands back up. Using the 3.5 exception, he could do both.

I'm just making my first reach weapon PC (with Combat Reflexes, of course), so I'm paying more attention to these rules right now to make sure I know what I'm doing in PFS with that PC.

Thinking about it, if we used the 3.5 version and let Z always attack Y, then you're giving 15 foot reach to someone that should only have 10 foot reach. But it makes sense that when they move from 15 to 5 feet away, they're moving through a point in which they're threatened.

In the case of the Greater Trip, you're just assuming for the sake of argument that they fell down backwards, which is why they're still 15 feet away and can't be attacked again.

I'm ok with that, despite the fact that my new reach PC will be a tripper with Greater Trip eventually.

Pax Veritas wrote:

Hold the phone here.

Are we saying that in Pathfinder RPG, the typically square "reach" threat range allows a caster to cast and a prone to stand up, provided they are in the far corners?

Pax Veritas: The 3.5 exception that allowed reach weapons to hit the 2nd diagonal square is missing in Pathfinder. Because of this you cannot threaten (attack) the 2nd square and make attacks of opportunity into it. Yes, a wizard can take a 5foot step along a diagonal in order to get away from you and then can cast a spell outside of your reach.

Many people still houserule the 3.5exception back into the game.

Here is a poll I created on this topic. The poll is just for curiousity but hopefully the developers will notice what the players want.

- Gauss

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And I don't do FAQs any more.
But you're my favorite! How come you don't do FAQs anymore?

Presumably because it's best that FAQ's come from one voice.

Doomed Hero wrote:

Seems odd to me, since you're not actually moving 10 feet to get into that last square.

You'd be moving 10 feet to get through it (if you had extra movement), but to simply end in that square, you're only going 5 feet further than you were in the last square.

So I guess the question becomes when does the second diagonal become 10 feet?

When you move into it?

Or when you move out of it?

Ah, but you ARE moving 10 ft. for that last square. Or rather, nearly 10 ft. It's just not accurately represented on the battlemap. The game simplifies the Pythagorean Theorem, rounding it into an easier to use system. It places the character on the closest square to their actual location. Two diagonal moves on the map is a little more than 14 ft. The game just rounds it to 15.

Fromper wrote:
In the case of the Greater Trip, you're just assuming for the sake of argument that they fell down backwards, which is why they're still 15 feet away and can't be attacked again.

So yes, it was an assumption, but one that 'sounds right' to the Designer.

-edit- and it's not that they fell backwards, it's that they fell in the phantom 10' square, which is part of the 15' square.

 Assistant Software Developer

I removed a post. Do not use that word that way.

Ross Byers wrote:
I removed a post. Do not use that word that way.

What word? Brick?

Fromper wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
I removed a post. Do not use that word that way.

What word? Brick?

I believe the offending word was, 'retarded'. If so, Mr. Byers was entirely correct.

Unless using the word in it's correct medical context, the word is offensive.

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

Wow.. Mind blown... I am going to have fun explaining this to all my PFS GMs... And at Cons...uggg, they won't believe me!

Dragnmoon: feel free to head to my Poll and vote.

- Gauss

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

So I am still confused ...

With a natural reach of 10' you can still attack 2 diagonals (15' for movement) but for a reach weapon of 10' you cannot? It looks more like a burst effect for your reach? But you can for An AoO but only AoO that are started for moving through threatened squares?

Or is it the same for both natural and weapons, where you can't attack that diagonal that would be considered 15' in movement?

Doomed Hero wrote:
Seems odd to me, since you're not actually moving 10 feet to get into that last square.

The answer to this is basically that you're not actually moving 5 feet to get into that first square.

If you attempt to run it by what it would actually take to move into each different square, then forwards/backwards/left/right is 5 ft. and diagonal is 7.5 ft. That would make things a lot more restricting for you, especially in relation to what could then be counted as a 5-foot step.

In short: The diagonal-movement rules as they're written actually make things easier for players than the rules interpreted by how it would realistically work. It's best not to complain.

Dragnmoon:

Neither a natural reach of 10' nor a reach weapon with a reach of 10' can attack the second diagonal. The 3.5 exception rule that allowed this was not included in Pathfinder.

For quite awhile people wondered about the inconsistency that a creature can approach via the diagonal and not provoke an AoO. With SKRs ruling that inconsistency is covered.

However, as per the poll thread I created it appears that the majority of pollsters are using the 3.5 Exception as a houserule in their own games. It also appears that many people did not even realize the 3.5 exception was not present in Pathfinder. There are some PFS GMs who were unaware of the change (from 3.5 to PF) are going to have to enforce this change at their tables.

- Gauss

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just because the square reach rules from 3.5 are simpler doesn't mean they're better. The phantom square method is more complex, involved, and abstract, but it avoids the whole "squircles" issue and is, generally, more realistic.

This sums it up rather nicely

Grick wrote:
Fromper wrote:
In the case of the Greater Trip, you're just assuming for the sake of argument that they fell down backwards, which is why they're still 15 feet away and can't be attacked again.

So yes, it was an assumption, but one that 'sounds right' to the Designer.

-edit- and it's not that they fell backwards, it's that they fell in the phantom 10' square, which is part of the 15' square.

In the post you referenced you mentioned standing up, not Greater Trip. I think that Greater Trip could be resolved after you successfully make the trip maneuver (as in you roll the die and tally your bonuses and the GM says, 'that trips him'), then you get the AOO before he actually falls prone. I see the feat as going either way, (either provoking the AOO before he falls prone, or after), but I'd like to point out that it might be granted before the target actually lands in the 15' square.

Kazaan wrote:
Just because the square reach rules from 3.5 are simpler doesn't mean they're better. The phantom square method is more complex, involved, and abstract, but it avoids the whole "squircles" issue and is, generally, more realistic.

Sean's so-called "phantom square method" is less abstract, not more.

That aside, the core rules state that there are two ways to provoke an attack of opportunity:

* Moving out of a threatened square
* Performing certain actions in a threatened square

If the 2nd diagonal isn't threatened, then moving through it meets neither of these criteria. Therefore, in the absence of a specific rule for this particular situation, the only logical conclusion is that such a move does NOT provoke -- irrespective of how much that may happen to strain Sean's suspension of disbelief. If such a rule does exist, I'd be delighted if someone would provide a page reference. Otherwise, until Sean's interpretation shows up in the Errata or the FAQ, or at least gets an explicit nod from Mark, I'll be ignoring it when GMing PFS tables.

Edit: This sort of thing is exactly why this thread exists.

bugleyman wrote:
If the 2nd diagonal isn't threatened, then moving through it meets neither of these criteria. Therefore, in the absence of a specific rule for this particular situation, the only logical conclusion is that such a move does NOT provoke -- irrespective of how much that may happen to strain Sean's suspension of disbelief. If such a rule does exist, I'd be delighted if someone would provide a page reference. Otherwise, until Sean's interpretation shows up in the Errata or the FAQ, or at least gets an explicit nod from Mark, I'll be ignoring it when GMing PFS tables.

Like SKR said, the world doesn't consist of a rigid 5' grid; the grid is a tool to facilitate arranging pieces on a board but just that, a tool. You don't threaten the 15' square but you do threaten the 10' square. Just because that 10' square isn't explicitly drawn on a Cartesian coordinate grid doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Another way to think of it is that you have two grids that are off-set if you need help imagining the idea that approaching from a diagonal doesn't miraculously transport you from one side of an character's reach to the other with no intervening movement. I'll say it again for those who found it unclear: There is a 10' square along the diagonal. It's a non-illustrated square that isn't present on a grid board, but SKR, the guy who designed the game, says that it's there. All arguments to the contrary are invalid.

Kazaan wrote:
Like SKR said, the world doesn't consist of a rigid 5' grid; the grid is a tool to facilitate arranging pieces on a board but just that, a tool. You don't threaten the 15' square but you do threaten the 10' square. Just because that 10' square isn't explicitly drawn on a Cartesian coordinate grid doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Another way to think of it is that you have two grids that are off-set if you need help imagining the idea that approaching from a diagonal doesn't miraculously transport you from one side of an character's reach to the other with no intervening movement. I'll say it again for those who found it unclear: There is a 10' square along the diagonal. It's a non-illustrated square that isn't present on a grid board, but SKR, the guy who designed the game, says that it's there. All arguments to the contrary are invalid.

Sean is not "the guy who designed that game." And while he is a Paizo employee, "errata by employee fiat" isn't a sustainable game design methodology.

Which is beside the point. If we accept Sean's rationale for ignoring the RAW, then we're left with the inescapable corollary that other abstractions which demonstrably contradict physical reality (read: nearly all abstractions) may also be ignored. After all, people in the real world clearly have a front and back...so the no-facing abstraction should be ignored, right?

You misunderstand the point of contention. Sean's rationale is clear -- it just isn't cogent.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
If the 2nd diagonal isn't threatened, then moving through it meets neither of these criteria. Therefore, in the absence of a specific rule for this particular situation, the only logical conclusion is that such a move does NOT provoke -- irrespective of how much that may happen to strain Sean's suspension of disbelief. If such a rule does exist, I'd be delighted if someone would provide a page reference. Otherwise, until Sean's interpretation shows up in the Errata or the FAQ, or at least gets an explicit nod from Mark, I'll be ignoring it when GMing PFS tables.
Like SKR said, the world doesn't consist of a rigid 5' grid; the grid is a tool to facilitate arranging pieces on a board but just that, a tool. You don't threaten the 15' square but you do threaten the 10' square. Just because that 10' square isn't explicitly drawn on a Cartesian coordinate grid doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Another way to think of it is that you have two grids that are off-set if you need help imagining the idea that approaching from a diagonal doesn't miraculously transport you from one side of an character's reach to the other with no intervening movement. I'll say it again for those who found it unclear: There is a 10' square along the diagonal. It's a non-illustrated square that isn't present on a grid board, but SKR, the guy who designed the game, says that it's there. All arguments to the contrary are invalid.

So where does the target fall prone if you trip him with your AoO?

I agree with bugleyman. SKR's explanation doesn't really work. It still leaves you with weird positioning issues (see question above) that either destroy the game's verisimilitude or else ends up functioning very much like the way v3.5 did it anyways.

Ravingdork wrote:
I agree with bugleyman. SKR's explanation doesn't really work. It still leaves you with weird positioning issues (see question above) that either destroy the game's verisimilitude or else ends up functioning very much like the way v3.5 did it anyways.

So which do you think is better and more rational for the game system? The state where you can approach from the diagonal (through the range of their weapon) and inexplicably not trigger an AoO or the state where you could stand at the 15' diagonal (outside of their 10' reach) and provoke by drinking a potion? Facing issues are already accounted for in the flanking rules and a lot of other abstractions have adequate coverage; diagonal approach through a reach-threat area has no such coverage without the abstract concept of "off-the-grid" squares. Mechanically, it works little different from limiting AoO to the 15' corners to "resulting from movement through your reach only". But the rules, as they are written, don't give room for that interpretation because it talks in "squares". So the solution also has to be phrased in terms of "squares" by saying the 10' "square" is there but superimposed over the vertex of the 15' and 5' squares. This isn't rocket science people, and it isn't poorly explained. It's intuitive, rational, and fits within the RAW. Failure to comprehend the principal is due to nothing else than lack of imagination... and if that's the case, some people need to seriously reconsider their hobbies.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It is NOT more intuitive, rational, or a better fit than the v3.5 picture diagrams were. It's hard to beat a clear picture.

 51 to 100 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>