paizo.com Recent Posts in Ending movement with a Diagonalpaizo.com Recent Posts in Ending movement with a Diagonal2013-06-02T02:28:20Z2013-06-02T02:28:20ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalSlamy Mcbiteohttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1452013-07-23T22:27:55Z2013-07-23T22:27:55Z<p>This does not make any game sense to me at all....if they do not threaten then they can not take an AoO. Plus why trip them in 15 foot square where they can not reach? so now there is a free bullrush if you trip at diagonal? If they wanted the diagonal to 10 feet then they should have made it 10 feet since it is 15 there should not be an AoO as then pass over the line between 2 spaces......</p>This does not make any game sense to me at all....if they do not threaten then they can not take an AoO. Plus why trip them in 15 foot square where they can not reach? so now there is a free bullrush if you trip at diagonal? If they wanted the diagonal to 10 feet then they should have made it 10 feet since it is 15 there should not be an AoO as then pass over the line between 2 spaces......Slamy Mcbiteo2013-07-23T22:27:55ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalBigdaddyjughttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1442013-07-11T20:08:43Z2013-07-11T20:08:43Z<p>I recently purchased one of those brown rubbery mats with the HEX grid on one side and the rectilinear grid on the other side. This thread is making me want to use the HEX grid for all of games I GM. The only problem is all of Paizo's maps are drawn on a rectilinear grid and I don't feel like translating them over to HEX.</p>I recently purchased one of those brown rubbery mats with the HEX grid on one side and the rectilinear grid on the other side. This thread is making me want to use the HEX grid for all of games I GM. The only problem is all of Paizo's maps are drawn on a rectilinear grid and I don't feel like translating them over to HEX.Bigdaddyjug2013-07-11T20:08:43ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalGausshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1432013-07-11T19:07:54Z2013-07-11T19:07:54Z<p><b>Mx. Bug</b>, there are a <a href="http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p5qy&page=1?Poll-Reach-Weapons-and-the-2nd-diagonal-Do" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><b>majority of pollsters</b></a> (106 to 14) that would disagree with you on it being 'common sense'. </p>
<p>It appears that the 'common sense' is that if you threaten a half of a square you threaten the square. </p>
<p>- Gauss</p>Mx. Bug, there are a majority of pollsters (106 to 14) that would disagree with you on it being 'common sense'.
It appears that the 'common sense' is that if you threaten a half of a square you threaten the square.
- GaussGauss2013-07-11T19:07:54ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalSimianhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1422013-07-10T22:52:59Z2013-07-10T22:52:59Z<p>I apologize if this has been brought up because I didn't want to read 141 posts but even if it has it clearly hasn't been fixed yet. </p>
<p>The colored space, reach, reach weapon diagrams at the bottom of the page are exceptionally useful but 2 of them are erred.</p>
<p>If you compare the large (tall) and large (long) diagrams the reach area in the large (tall) diagram (green squares) is effectively the equivalent of the combination of both the reach area and the reach weapon area (green and purple squares) in the large (long) diagram. However, the 2 square diagonal is colored green in the large (tall) diagram. This square is the equivalent of 15' and should be purple not green in the large (tall) diagram.</p>
<p>In the huge (long) and huge (tall) diagrams the space and reach are the exact same for both which implies that the colored green squares would be the exact same for both but that is not the case. The only thing that should be different between the 2 diagrams is the reach weapon distance (purple squares). Or, conversely the values listed for the huge (long) should be corrected but at present no corrections to those values would satisfy the coloration in the diagram.</p>I apologize if this has been brought up because I didn't want to read 141 posts but even if it has it clearly hasn't been fixed yet.
The colored space, reach, reach weapon diagrams at the bottom of the page are exceptionally useful but 2 of them are erred.
If you compare the large (tall) and large (long) diagrams the reach area in the large (tall) diagram (green squares) is effectively the equivalent of the combination of both the reach area and the reach weapon area (green and purple...Simian2013-07-10T22:52:59ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalMx. Bughttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1412013-07-05T17:12:01Z2013-07-05T17:12:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Neo2151 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Big Bopper wrote:</div><blockquote> Unless the attacker is a monster, because they DO threaten the 15' diagonal. Another reason to level the playing field by reverting to the 3.5 rules on reach weapons. </blockquote><p>This.
<p>A monster with a 10ft reach can "reach" 15ft diagonally.
<br />
A player with a 10ft reach weapon cannot do the same.</p>
<p>It's dumb and arbitrarily more complicated this way. 3.5 ftw here. </blockquote><p>No...no. Firstly, by RAW the one and only advantage to natural reach is to threaten the entire circle, instead of just the perimeter. <b>This does not include "extra" corners.</b> Secondly, the diagonal problem doesn't exist in the first place per SKR's ruling. IMO the only reason it's not a FAQ is because it should be common sense.Neo2151 wrote:Big Bopper wrote: Unless the attacker is a monster, because they DO threaten the 15' diagonal. Another reason to level the playing field by reverting to the 3.5 rules on reach weapons.
This. A monster with a 10ft reach can "reach" 15ft diagonally.
A player with a 10ft reach weapon cannot do the same.
It's dumb and arbitrarily more complicated this way. 3.5 ftw here. No...no. Firstly, by RAW the one and only advantage to natural reach is to threaten the entire circle, instead...Mx. Bug2013-07-05T17:12:01ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalNeo2151https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1402013-04-27T00:59:27Z2013-04-27T00:59:27Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Big Bopper wrote:</div><blockquote> Unless the attacker is a monster, because they DO threaten the 15' diagonal. Another reason to level the playing field by reverting to the 3.5 rules on reach weapons. </blockquote><p>This.
<p>A monster with a 10ft reach can "reach" 15ft diagonally.
<br />
A player with a 10ft reach weapon cannot do the same.</p>
<p>It's dumb and arbitrarily more complicated this way. 3.5 ftw here.</p>Big Bopper wrote:Unless the attacker is a monster, because they DO threaten the 15' diagonal. Another reason to level the playing field by reverting to the 3.5 rules on reach weapons.
This. A monster with a 10ft reach can "reach" 15ft diagonally.
A player with a 10ft reach weapon cannot do the same.
It's dumb and arbitrarily more complicated this way. 3.5 ftw here.Neo21512013-04-27T00:59:27ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalBig Bopper (alias of Tim Clague)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1392013-04-27T00:58:34Z2013-02-16T06:27:54Z<p>Unless the attacker is a monster, because they DO threaten the 15' diagonal. Another reason to level the playing field by reverting to the 3.5 rules on reach weapons.</p>Unless the attacker is a monster, because they DO threaten the 15' diagonal. Another reason to level the playing field by reverting to the 3.5 rules on reach weapons.Big Bopper (alias of Tim Clague)2013-02-16T06:27:54ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalHangarFlyinghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1382013-02-07T06:26:14Z2013-02-07T06:26:14Z<p>Playing devil's advocate here: if you move five feet diagonally, you couldn't then attack the adjacent diagonal because that diagonal is counted as a 10' space. So while a character with a reach weapon wouldn't get an AoO against someone moving on the diagonal; neither would that someone get an attack against the character (unless their movement started three diagonal spaces away).</p>Playing devil's advocate here: if you move five feet diagonally, you couldn't then attack the adjacent diagonal because that diagonal is counted as a 10' space. So while a character with a reach weapon wouldn't get an AoO against someone moving on the diagonal; neither would that someone get an attack against the character (unless their movement started three diagonal spaces away).HangarFlying2013-02-07T06:26:14ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalZugZughttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1372013-02-07T05:03:42Z2013-02-07T05:03:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">anksanis wrote:</div><blockquote> Wow, people get pretty hot about this math issue. I know I personally use the old method, from before 3rd edition, whereby a square is 1 square of movement, no matter which direction you use. I know this makes the math experts unhappy, and I know it violates the rules, but neither my players nor I mind. If the squares are making your life difficult in trying to figure out when a diagonal means more than any other direction, you might want to consider pretending a square is a square. Just my 2 cents, but you may find this cuts through all the math hyperbole and brings you back into an easier, friendlier (though less true to abstract math) type of play! Your mileage may vary, though, just a thought. </blockquote><p>4e actually does that as wellanksanis wrote:Wow, people get pretty hot about this math issue. I know I personally use the old method, from before 3rd edition, whereby a square is 1 square of movement, no matter which direction you use. I know this makes the math experts unhappy, and I know it violates the rules, but neither my players nor I mind. If the squares are making your life difficult in trying to figure out when a diagonal means more than any other direction, you might want to consider pretending a square is a...ZugZug2013-02-07T05:03:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalGausshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1362013-02-06T05:36:13Z2013-02-06T05:36:13Z<p>Kazaan, your 'lazy' is another person's 'simple'. If a game is going to be mass marketed things should be simple. There are enough problems to worry about without having to redraw the map every time someone hits a diagonal corridor. </p>
<p>As I suggested earlier, those people that really want to avoid this can use a gridless map. BUT, that is not simple and takes more time, work, and experienced players. </p>
<p>Rotating the grid actually takes an insane amount of time and effort when dealing with pre-printed maps. Even converting a map in a book to the white board would take a GM several extra minutes as he tries to change the orientation of the map in the book to what he is drawing on the board. </p>
<p>- Gauss</p>Kazaan, your 'lazy' is another person's 'simple'. If a game is going to be mass marketed things should be simple. There are enough problems to worry about without having to redraw the map every time someone hits a diagonal corridor.
As I suggested earlier, those people that really want to avoid this can use a gridless map. BUT, that is not simple and takes more time, work, and experienced players.
Rotating the grid actually takes an insane amount of time and effort when dealing with...Gauss2013-02-06T05:36:13ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalRavingdorkhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1352013-02-06T05:30:39Z2013-02-04T18:17:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sean K Reynolds wrote:</div><blockquote> 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 <i>Core Rulebook</i> if they're not actually errors. </blockquote><p>Even if the majority of active tabletop roleplayers seem to mistakenly use the the incorrect v3.5 method? Would it not be simpler to adopt the v3.5 method than to make a bunch of players have a "Huh? What?" to your clarification?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.
Even if the majority of active tabletop roleplayers seem to mistakenly use the the incorrect v3.5 method? Would it not be simpler to adopt the v3.5 method than to make a bunch of players have a "Huh? What?" to your clarification?Ravingdork2013-02-04T18:17:37ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalMatthew Downiehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1342013-02-04T18:08:42Z2013-02-04T18:08:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chemlak wrote:</div><blockquote> It's not pretty, but it resolves all of the problems. </blockquote><p>Only the AoO problem, not the diagonal corridor problem.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chemlak wrote:</div><blockquote> The problem with the 3.5 exception is that it inverts the problem: why do I threaten 15' on a diagonal, but not on a straight? </blockquote><p>That problem can be solved by ignoring it, the same way we ignore the fact that characters ought to be able to stand half way between map squares if they want to.Chemlak wrote:It's not pretty, but it resolves all of the problems.
Only the AoO problem, not the diagonal corridor problem. Chemlak wrote:The problem with the 3.5 exception is that it inverts the problem: why do I threaten 15' on a diagonal, but not on a straight?
That problem can be solved by ignoring it, the same way we ignore the fact that characters ought to be able to stand half way between map squares if they want to.Matthew Downie2013-02-04T18:08:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalShar Tahlhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1332013-02-04T17:35:22Z2013-02-04T17:35:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gauss wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Doomed Hero, I suggest that if you do not want the restrictions of a grid go to a gridless map. Rulers work just fine. I have played that way and with experienced players it works decently well. </p>
<p>- Gauss </blockquote><p>That is what I moved to. I gave the players a six inch dowel with inch notches and they move their characters wherever the movement allows within that distance. I also made up AE templates or spells that are based on actual size and have special rules for edges of effects.Gauss wrote:Doomed Hero, I suggest that if you do not want the restrictions of a grid go to a gridless map. Rulers work just fine. I have played that way and with experienced players it works decently well.
- Gauss
That is what I moved to. I gave the players a six inch dowel with inch notches and they move their characters wherever the movement allows within that distance. I also made up AE templates or spells that are based on actual size and have special rules for edges of effects.Shar Tahl2013-02-04T17:35:22ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalChemlakhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1322013-02-04T17:26:40Z2013-02-04T17:26:40Z<p>The problem with the 3.5 exception is that it inverts the problem: why do I threaten 15' on a diagonal, but not on a straight?</p>
<p>Yes, it's easy to adjudicate and gets around the problem of the diagonal approach, but does nothing about the fact that 10' reach should not work on creatures that are measurably (within the granularity of the game system) 15' away. The SKR solution (sorry, Sean, it's good shorthand, and I'm not directly attributing it to you, despite the "name") is essentially as follows: Should movement occur from a non-threatened square into a threatened square that is (by normal distance conting) closer than the reach distance of the defender's weapon, that movement provokes an attack of opportunity. <Insert example here.></p>
<p>It's not pretty, but it resolves all of the problems.</p>The problem with the 3.5 exception is that it inverts the problem: why do I threaten 15' on a diagonal, but not on a straight?
Yes, it's easy to adjudicate and gets around the problem of the diagonal approach, but does nothing about the fact that 10' reach should not work on creatures that are measurably (within the granularity of the game system) 15' away. The SKR solution (sorry, Sean, it's good shorthand, and I'm not directly attributing it to you, despite the "name") is essentially as...Chemlak2013-02-04T17:26:40ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalMalachi Silverclaw (alias of Matt Bray)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1312013-02-04T16:50:57Z2013-02-04T16:50:57Z<p>While you might think your method is simpler/better, Kazaan, according to Gauss' poll ten times as many people (96 to 9, one person voted both ways) think that the 3.5 exception is simpler/better.</p>
<p>Since 3rd ed until PF, reach weapons threatened the diagonal. No-one complained about it and everyone knew about it. There was no problem to fix!</p>
<p>Any attempt to take those diagonals away would have resulted in the creation of problems that never existed before, such as not being able to attack in diagonal corridors, not getting an AoO on those approaching on a diagonal, both of which are more of a 'problem' than threatening the second diagonal ever was!</p>
<p>Any 'solution' so far advanced (apart from returning to the original 3.5 rule) generates new problems to be solved. Pretend they <i>do</i> threaten the diagonal, but only if moving toward you? Okay, my AoO trips him, but now I can't attack him despite neither of moving in the beat between trip and follow-up?</p>
<p>In the opinion of the (96 to 9) vast majority, they should not have changed it in PF. They <i>actually play the rule of a different game system</i> because the current rule is so flawed!</p>
<p>What I object to with the solution you put forward, Kazaan, is that it makes no attempt to work within the static square grid which <i>is</i> the game system, and calls us lazy for not changing it! One advantage of the 3.5 rule is that it was <b>made</b> for the static grid system, and works perfectly without having to make other stuff up to cover weaknesses.</p>While you might think your method is simpler/better, Kazaan, according to Gauss' poll ten times as many people (96 to 9, one person voted both ways) think that the 3.5 exception is simpler/better.
Since 3rd ed until PF, reach weapons threatened the diagonal. No-one complained about it and everyone knew about it. There was no problem to fix!
Any attempt to take those diagonals away would have resulted in the creation of problems that never existed before, such as not being able to attack in...Malachi Silverclaw (alias of Matt Bray)2013-02-04T16:50:57ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalKazaanhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1302013-02-04T16:32:09Z2013-02-04T16:32:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DigitalMage wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Kazaan wrote:</div><blockquote>To put it bluntly, it <b>is</b> lazy GMing to want to use diagonal corridors and represent them with dungeon tiles <b>without adjusting for the implications of problems with 10' reach along diagonals.</b> A GM could put a modicum of extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square or some such tool to address the problem. If, instead, he says, "Well, sorry, it's too much trouble to deal with that so you're SOL," then he's being lazy. </blockquote><p>Yep, you're right, it is lazy GMing to want to use game aids such as Dungeon Tiles - and that is a good thing, because it makes the game flow smoother and quicker.
<p>I mean, by your logic, using square based movement is lazy as well and we should just be using tape measures and allow PCs to move in whichever direction they wish. But I imagine that would slow combats down somewhat and so we use the lazy approach.</p>
<p>Personally, if I am going to be a lazy GM, rather than go to the "extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square" I would just houserule in the 3.5 rule - even easier, and probably a lot quicker to explain to players too! And I can use my dungeon tiles as is, without having to screw around with changing the alignment of the grid.</p>
<p>So yeah, lazy GMing is good! :) </blockquote><p>I bolded the applicable part of what you quoted from me to show why your analysis is incorrect. I didn't say that using dungeon tiles <b>in and of itself</b> is lazy but that using them without consideration for how a 5' wide diagonal presents inherent problems with the rules is lazy. Using 3.5 as-is, again, without adjustment by the GM (you know, that's kind of your job), is lazy. There's no rule against being lazy. If players are just as lazy as their GM, neither party will care. If GM is diligent and adapts their tools to make for a smoother and more realistic setting, I don't think the players will mind significantly unless they're trying to exploit the loopholes in the rules. If both GM and Players are diligent, then, again, no issue. The significant issue comes from lazy GMs paired with diligent players. Tools are only useful if they're used correctly. If the manner in which you're using a tool prevents the work from being done, you're using it incorrectly. Dungeon Tiles, Grid Mats, and the rules themselves are merely tools. And the most important tool you have is your capacity for reason. Be progressive; don't cling to the past but don't charge forward recklessly, either. If there's something objectively better, use it. If you can't objectively show that it isn't better, don't resort to logical fallacies like Strawman.DigitalMage wrote:Kazaan wrote:To put it bluntly, it is lazy GMing to want to use diagonal corridors and represent them with dungeon tiles without adjusting for the implications of problems with 10' reach along diagonals. A GM could put a modicum of extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square or some such tool to address the problem. If, instead, he says, "Well, sorry, it's too much trouble to deal with that so you're SOL," then he's being lazy.
Yep, you're...Kazaan2013-02-04T16:32:09ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalKazaanhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1292013-02-04T16:16:06Z2013-02-04T16:16:06Z<p>By that logic, we're right back to square fireballs. The 5' corridor issue is adequately addressed by my method. Yes, you could use a more complicated method, but my method is both simpler and it works. Your method is simpler than mine, but it doesn't work. The method for mounts is, by admission of the PRD, a rule "for the sake of simplicity" and by that very admission should not be generalized too greatly. Rules for a 'space' state that, while a creature doesn't necessarily fill the entire 5' square, so long as you can attack into it, you can attack that creature. By strict reading of RAW, you <b>cannot</b> attack into the 15' square. You can't say that "If I can attack into the phantom 10' square and part of that square rests in the actual 15' square, I can attack into the whole 15' square" because that doesn't make sense. If you can attack into the 15' square because of a phantom square that overlaps it, then you can attack at any radius by a chain of phantom squares.</p>
<p>Given two <b>equally effective</b> solutions, take the simpler one. That relies on the two solutions being equally effective. 3rd ed method leaves errors that the rectilinear diagonal method addresses; thus the latter method is <b>more effective</b>. Use of logarithms, on the other hand, isn't going to cover any of the errors more significantly than rectilinear diagonals. Thus, the equally effective methods here are logarithms vs rectilinear diagonals and. So, rectilinear diagonals being simpler, wins out as the better option. Logically speaking, of course. </p>
<p>Now 3rd ED method <b>could</b> be adjusted for practice instead of just being held to in pedantic manner. If you use it as a basis and say that being slightly out of range of a reach weapon can be counted as cover vs melee or some such then that might be acceptable. But in that case, both methods are equivalently effective and equivalently simple so it really comes down to personal preference barring one or the other being officially adopted by Pathfinder RAW.</p>By that logic, we're right back to square fireballs. The 5' corridor issue is adequately addressed by my method. Yes, you could use a more complicated method, but my method is both simpler and it works. Your method is simpler than mine, but it doesn't work. The method for mounts is, by admission of the PRD, a rule "for the sake of simplicity" and by that very admission should not be generalized too greatly. Rules for a 'space' state that, while a creature doesn't necessarily fill the entire...Kazaan2013-02-04T16:16:06ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a Diagonalanksanishttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1282013-02-04T16:14:30Z2013-02-04T16:14:30Z<p>Wow, people get pretty hot about this math issue. I know I personally use the old method, from before 3rd edition, whereby a square is 1 square of movement, no matter which direction you use. I know this makes the math experts unhappy, and I know it violates the rules, but neither my players nor I mind. If the squares are making your life difficult in trying to figure out when a diagonal means more than any other direction, you might want to consider pretending a square is a square. Just my 2 cents, but you may find this cuts through all the math hyperbole and brings you back into an easier, friendlier (though less true to abstract math) type of play! Your mileage may vary, though, just a thought.</p>Wow, people get pretty hot about this math issue. I know I personally use the old method, from before 3rd edition, whereby a square is 1 square of movement, no matter which direction you use. I know this makes the math experts unhappy, and I know it violates the rules, but neither my players nor I mind. If the squares are making your life difficult in trying to figure out when a diagonal means more than any other direction, you might want to consider pretending a square is a square. Just my 2...anksanis2013-02-04T16:14:30ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalGrickhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1272013-02-06T05:16:19Z2013-02-04T16:02:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Malachi Silverclaw wrote:</div><blockquote><p> SKR's solution (I know he doesn't like it being attributed to him) involved the phantom square 10-feet away, but more importantly he said that this idea is already a consequence of the RAW, even though it wasn't obvious! If that is the case, then the following is <b>also</b> the case:-</p>
<p>The rules already state that a medium creature mounted on a large creature counts as occupying all four squares for the purpose of being targeted. The rules for a creatures 'space' also state that, while most creatures don't literally fill the whole volume of that space, you can target that creature if you can target any one of the squares that make up that creature's space.</p>
<p>Given that, and the 'phantom 10-foot square' idea, it has to be admitted that the phantom square overlaps the actual 15-foot square which is the second diagonal. The 10-foot reach weapon <b>can</b> attack anything in that phantom 10-foot square, and since that overlaps the actual 15-foot square, it <b>must</b> be able to attack a creature whose space includes that square!</blockquote><p>SKR never said anything about a phantom square, I did, trying to figure out the consequences of what he was talking about. He just said it sounded right.
<p>SKR said there's a threatened band that exists between squares, and passing through the 10-foot-radius band around the creature provokes. </p>
<p>The part I don't understand (aside from occupied squares during AoO's from other party members) is why this isn't considered a change, since the rules clearly and explicitly state you threaten squares, while the Jason interpretation <i>changes that</i> to refer to a band of space instead of a square. But since the rules are not in error, I guess that means our definition of a square is incorrect, and threatening squares means also threatening, in some cases, spaces between those squares. </p>
<p>Four months and only 14 FAQ requests on <a href="http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#29" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">his post</a>. (But almost 100 favorites on <a href="http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p5qy?Poll-Reach-Weapons-and-the-2nd-diagonal-Do" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Gauss' poll</a>)</p>Malachi Silverclaw wrote:SKR's solution (I know he doesn't like it being attributed to him) involved the phantom square 10-feet away, but more importantly he said that this idea is already a consequence of the RAW, even though it wasn't obvious! If that is the case, then the following is also the case:-
The rules already state that a medium creature mounted on a large creature counts as occupying all four squares for the purpose of being targeted. The rules for a creatures 'space' also state...Grick2013-02-04T16:02:56ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalThe Saltmarsh 6 (alias of tony gent)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1262013-02-04T16:02:17Z2013-02-04T16:02:17Z<p>This is one of the reasons i use a map with hexagons on it saves a lot of arguments</p>This is one of the reasons i use a map with hexagons on it saves a lot of argumentsThe Saltmarsh 6 (alias of tony gent)2013-02-04T16:02:17ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalDigitalMagehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1252013-02-06T05:15:22Z2013-02-04T15:54:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kazaan wrote:</div><blockquote>To put it bluntly, it <b>is</b> lazy GMing to want to use diagonal corridors and represent them with dungeon tiles without adjusting for the implications of problems with 10' reach along diagonals. A GM could put a modicum of extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square or some such tool to address the problem. If, instead, he says, "Well, sorry, it's too much trouble to deal with that so you're SOL," then he's being lazy. </blockquote><p>Yep, you're right, it is lazy GMing to want to use game aids such as Dungeon Tiles - and that is a good thing, because it makes the game flow smoother and quicker.
<p>I mean, by your logic, using square based movement is lazy as well and we should just be using tape measures and allow PCs to move in whichever direction they wish. But I imagine that would slow combats down somewhat and so we use the lazy approach.</p>
<p>Personally, if I am going to be a lazy GM, rather than go to the "extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square" I would just houserule in the 3.5 rule - even easier, and probably a lot quicker to explain to players too! And I can use my dungeon tiles as is, without having to screw around with changing the alignment of the grid.</p>
<p>So yeah, lazy GMing is good! :)</p>Kazaan wrote:To put it bluntly, it is lazy GMing to want to use diagonal corridors and represent them with dungeon tiles without adjusting for the implications of problems with 10' reach along diagonals. A GM could put a modicum of extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square or some such tool to address the problem. If, instead, he says, "Well, sorry, it's too much trouble to deal with that so you're SOL," then he's being lazy.
Yep, you're right, it is lazy...DigitalMage2013-02-04T15:54:47ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalMalachi Silverclaw (alias of Matt Bray)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1242013-02-04T15:30:57Z2013-02-04T15:30:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kazaan wrote:</div><blockquote>Easy solutions aren't always the best ones....You want an easy game? Go play checkers. </blockquote><p>It is certainly possible to calculate 2x2 using logarithms to a high degree of accuracy, but it must be said that sometimes the more complex solution is not better.
<p>Given two equally effective solutions choose the simple one each time.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kazaan wrote:</div><blockquote>And how is the 3.5 method better when it doesn't address the inherent problem with threatening and attacking outside the reach of your weapon?</blockquote><p>SKR's solution (I know he doesn't like it being attributed to him) involved the phantom square 10-feet away, but more importantly he said that this idea is already a consequence of the RAW, even though it wasn't obvious! If that is the case, then the following is <b>also</b> the case:-
<p>The rules already state that a medium creature mounted on a large creature counts as occupying all four squares for the purpose of being targeted. The rules for a creatures 'space' also state that, while most creatures don't literally fill the whole volume of that space, you can target that creature if you can target any one of the squares that make up that creature's space.</p>
<p>Given that, and the 'phantom 10-foot square' idea, it has to be admitted that the phantom square overlaps the actual 15-foot square which is the second diagonal. The 10-foot reach weapon <b>can</b> attack anything in that phantom 10-foot square, and since that overlaps the actual 15-foot square, it <b>must</b> be able to attack a creature whose space includes that square!</p>
<p>This is consistent with what's already in the CRB!</p>
<p>It allows a reach weapon to threaten that second diagonal, just by collating the rules that already exist, despite it not being spelled-out under the entry for 'reach weapons'.</p>
<p>The consequence is that, despite it not being spelled out, that reach weapons in PF <b>already do</b> threaten the diagonal, using the exact same logic that SKR used to explain how reach weapon wielders <b>do</b> get an AoO on those approaching on a diagonal, even though the rules don't spell it out!</p>
<p>If SKR's logic is sound, then the consequence is that reach weapons already do threaten the second diagonal!</p>
<p>If his logic is <b>not</b> sound, then we are back to (excuse me) square one, with the ability to charge reach weapon wielders diagonally without provoking an AoO by teleporting from 15-feet to 5-feet!</p>
<p>And if the implication of the rule is that reach weapons do threaten the second diagonal, then it's a good idea to simply write that into the rules on reach weapons.</p>
<p>Y'know, like they did in 3rd ed.</p>Kazaan wrote:Easy solutions aren't always the best ones....You want an easy game? Go play checkers.
It is certainly possible to calculate 2x2 using logarithms to a high degree of accuracy, but it must be said that sometimes the more complex solution is not better. Given two equally effective solutions choose the simple one each time.
Kazaan wrote:And how is the 3.5 method better when it doesn't address the inherent problem with threatening and attacking outside the reach of your weapon?
...Malachi Silverclaw (alias of Matt Bray)2013-02-04T15:30:57ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalKazaanhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1232013-02-04T15:29:04Z2013-02-04T15:29:04Z<p>It isn't a problem with the 10' corridor because there's always the option of a position to attack. Any blocking that occurs is blocking that could occur in any situation. The 5' diagonal in CoC isn't "gridded" so it's already set up for you to abstract it into a straight corridor roughly 25' long with each alternating "large bump" and "small bump" being considered a 5' square (whereas, by strict diagonal rules, it'd only be a 20' corridor). As with a gridded playmat, dungeon tiles are another tool to facilitate the game. If it gets in the way of mechanics to produce ridiculous situations like having no legal position to attack from because of the squares and diagonal rules or being able to attack beyond your reach to compensate for the aforementioned issue, then a better model must be used. To put it bluntly, it <b>is</b> lazy GMing to want to use diagonal corridors and represent them with dungeon tiles without adjusting for the implications of problems with 10' reach along diagonals. A GM could put a modicum of extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square or some such tool to address the problem. If, instead, he says, "Well, sorry, it's too much trouble to deal with that so you're SOL," then he's being lazy.</p>It isn't a problem with the 10' corridor because there's always the option of a position to attack. Any blocking that occurs is blocking that could occur in any situation. The 5' diagonal in CoC isn't "gridded" so it's already set up for you to abstract it into a straight corridor roughly 25' long with each alternating "large bump" and "small bump" being considered a 5' square (whereas, by strict diagonal rules, it'd only be a 20' corridor). As with a gridded playmat, dungeon tiles are...Kazaan2013-02-04T15:29:04ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalDigitalMagehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1222013-02-04T15:02:52Z2013-02-04T15:02:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kazaan wrote:</div><blockquote> A 5' wide diagonal corridor on a grid wouldn't allow a position to make a normal attack with a 10' reach weapon. That's ultimately a matter of lazy GMing right there. You can abstract it by making the corridor a "separate area" and simply normalize it to the grid so that it isn't diagonal. </blockquote><p>That doesn't really help when you want to make use of your dungeon tiles, look at <a href="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8474/8443947259_d98f71f080_b.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">my set up for the Freeport Trilogy </a> (WARNING! map spoiler for the original Freeport Trilogy adventure, Death in Freeport).
<p>If in this set up a fight occurred in the yellow diagonal tile, depending upon other obstacles and foes, someone with a 10' reach weapon my not be able to attack a foe standing in the main diagonal corridor. And this is a 10' wdie diagonal corridor.</p>
<p>Cathedral of Chaos has genuine 5' wide diagonal corridors as seen in <a href="https://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/excerpt_tiles_20120327_2.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">this picture</a>.</p>
<p>So I wouldn't call it lazy GMing to want to use diagonal corridors and represent them with dungeon tiles.</p>Kazaan wrote:A 5' wide diagonal corridor on a grid wouldn't allow a position to make a normal attack with a 10' reach weapon. That's ultimately a matter of lazy GMing right there. You can abstract it by making the corridor a "separate area" and simply normalize it to the grid so that it isn't diagonal.
That doesn't really help when you want to make use of your dungeon tiles, look at my set up for the Freeport Trilogy (WARNING! map spoiler for the original Freeport Trilogy adventure, Death...DigitalMage2013-02-04T15:02:52ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Ending movement with a DiagonalKazaanhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0wf&page=3?Ending-movement-with-a-Diagonal#1212013-02-04T14:50:49Z2013-02-04T14:50:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Malachi Silverclaw wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Two solutions for the price of one! Cool!</p>
<p>Solution 1: Abstract a seperate area within which you 'normalise' (read:rotate 180 degrees).</p>
<p>If this is reasonable, wouldn't it be even more reasonable to do this without requiring a diagonal corridor? Simply 'normalise' everytime you would otherwise move or attack diagonally.</p>
<p>Somehow, I think this is easier said than done. It's certainly not better than the 3.5 version.</p>
<p>Solution 2: Don't allow diagonal corridors to exist in your game world.</p>
<p>Er...<i>this</i> is a <i>solution?</i> </blockquote><p>Are all diagonal corridors in your games at a 45 degree angle to the grid? You never have a corridor at 30 degrees or 60 degrees or... 72.5 degrees? You don't really need to 'normalize' when dealing with an open room. Corridors, on the other hand, should always be treated as being rectilinear on the grid rather than diagonal of any angle to minimize pixelation of your tactical grid. And how is 3.5 method better when it doesn't address the inherent problem of threatening and attacking outside the reach of your weapon? Easy solutions aren't always the best ones. Did you hear about the dictator who's doctor told him he was at risk for a heart attack? He had the doctor executed and brought in a new doctor and, miraculously, his new doctor pronounced him in top health. Easy? Yes. Effective? No. You want an easy game? Go play checkers.Malachi Silverclaw wrote:Two solutions for the price of one! Cool!
Solution 1: Abstract a seperate area within which you 'normalise' (read:rotate 180 degrees).
If this is reasonable, wouldn't it be even more reasonable to do this without requiring a diagonal corridor? Simply 'normalise' everytime you would otherwise move or attack diagonally.
Somehow, I think this is easier said than done. It's certainly not better than the 3.5 version.
Solution 2: Don't allow diagonal corridors to exist...Kazaan2013-02-04T14:50:49Z