Hmmm, actually, now that I think about it I don't think that is right either.
Top down (horizontal) line:
5'x5' to get to the next square which comes up with ~7.07'.
Now, we make that out X axis in the vertical triangle with our Y axis being 5'.
We get: (7.07^2+5^2)^0.5 = 8.66'
Round up to 10' for a 5' distant square.
So we have only had to apply Pythagoras twice.
This would work for any distance. Lets say the target is 2 diagonal squares away and 2 diagonal squares up.
First: (10^2+10^2)^0.5 = ~14.14'
Now, we set the X axis to the first.
Second: (14.14^2+10^2)^0.5 = ~17.32'
Which comes out to what you got. You only need to run Pythagoras twice. :)
- Gauss
Regarding my point about the example on CRB p194, ignore it. :)
Another poster pointed out the wording that allowed large+ creatures to use the non-adjacent rules while adjacent (CRB p196).
Hate it when I miss stuff like that.
However, it also states we can target specific squares of a creature.
Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.
- Gauss
I'm a little unsure why this thread is persisting. It say in the CRB in black and white that reach weapons cannot be used to attack an adjacent opponent. It's spelled out very clearly and specifically. Unless it specifically states somewhere that large creatures can be attacked with reach weapons when they are adjacent, there's no argument here. The cover rules do not apply because an adjacent large creature is an ineligible target for a reach weapon by RAW as it stands.
I'm not saying I agree with it, or that I wouldn't rule against it in my game, but RAW, that's clearly the rules until errata'd or FAQ'd.
So why not stab the reach weapon up? It has a face, hasn't it? And it's ten feet high? :)
Not all is RAW, it's also fun, fun, fun.
Stabbing the face is fun?
Oh don't get me wrong, that sounds super fun!
But this, as they say, is the rules forum :) No fun here, just RAW :)
The large creature is both adjacent to you AND 10' away...This. Also, people seem to think only in 2D. The large creature (at least, if "tall" and not "long"), is not only in a square 10 ft away from you on the horizontal axis. Its head (or whatever) is also towering ABOVE you. Without the rest of its body particularly in the way to give "soft cover" or any other nonsense.
DM: "How are you attacking the adjacent giant with your longspear?"
Player: "Uh...by stabbing it in the face?"
DM: "Oh, right... 3 dimensions..."EDIT: Not surprised others have already brought this up, now that I'm actually scrolling through the posts.
If this were a simulation, you'll be right. But this is a game, the ogre doesn't fill his 10x10, you don't fill your 5x5, and your halberd isn't 10' long anyway. All of those are abstract units of measure that we arbitrarily use to make the game easier. That's why you are allowed to attack the ogre 10' away with your 7' halberd too, and that's why it's impossible to move 2' to the left. Either you move 5', or you don't move. The ogre can be 10' tall, but he can be 8' tall too and still qualify as large. Could you attack him in the face if he were 8' tall? Why? Because his face is in the "second vertical square" and you round up? What about a guy who is 5'10''? His face is in the second vertical square too...
The rule says you CAN'T attack in melee against a large creature with a reach weapon. You are both adjacent, and 10' away. As you ARE adjacent, you CAN'T attack him.
Think on this:
You can drive your car if you ar 18 years old
You can't drive your car if you are drunk
You are both 18 years old, and drunk.
Can you drive your car?
Now change "drive" for "attack", "car" for "ogre", "18 years old" for "being at 10'", and "drunk" for "being adjacent"
Hmmm, actually, now that I think about it I don't think that is right either.
<snip>
Which comes out to what you got. You only need to run Pythagoras twice. :)
- Gauss
If you're doing 2 5ft cubes, you need to use Pythagoras four times. I used it twice, once horizontally, and once vertically on a 10x10x10 ft cube.
You advocated quartering that cube in both dimensions (cutting it into 8 cubes) and only counting the diagonal distance of two cubes (Upper left and bottom right). This is functionally the same as what I did, but you have to use Pythagoras horizontally and then vertically on the first 5ft cube and get 8.66. Then repeat on the second cube for the same value. Or, to say it simpler, the distance from the front bottom left to the back top right of a 10x10x10 ft cube is exactly twice the distance from the same points on a 5x5x5 ft cube. 17.32.
Alright, I suppose specifically for large creatures, they may not be quite 10 ft away. So those are up in the air a bit.
But for Gargantuan and larger, there's definitely not argument, those guys occupy 15 ft cubes. And, as I pointed out a year ago (didn't even notice this was a thread necro!), why is it that ranged attackers can pick out a part of a foe that's away from the melee to avoid his -4 penalty, but a reach user cannot also attack those far-away parts?
If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
If your target is two size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with, this penalty is reduced to –2. There is no penalty for firing at a creature that is three size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with.
Precise Shot: If you have the Precise Shot feat, you don't take this penalty.
Especially since reach weapons use the ranged weapon rules for determining cover.
When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...why is it that ranged attackers can pick out a part of a foe that's away from the melee to avoid his -4 penalty, but a reach user cannot also attack those far-away parts?
For the simple reason that the rules prohibit it. If you play by RAW, that is.
Especially since reach weapons use the ranged weapon rules for determining cover.
When making a melee attack against a target that (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
The enlarged bolded bit shows how these rules don't apply to the situation currently under discussion.
mdt,
In order to calculate the distance between two points in 3 dimensions you use Pythagoras twice. Here is a link
Lets assuming that the attacker is the 0,0,0 point and the target point is 5, 5, 5. (5 on the x axis, 5 on the y axis, and 5 on the z axis) away.
This represents 1 cube diagonally away on both the top-down and side views.
Then we get:
{[(5^2+5^2)^0.5]^2+5^2}^0.5 = ~8.66
For a point that is at co-ordinates (10, 10, 10) we get:
{[(10^2+10^2)^0.5]^2+10^2}^0.5 = ~17.32
There is only two instances of Pythagoras to find distance between two points in 3-d space.
- Gauss
mdt,
In order to calculate the distance between two points in 3 dimensions you use Pythagoras twice. Here is a link
Lets assuming that the attacker is the 0,0,0 point and the target point is 5, 5, 5. (5 on the x axis, 5 on the y axis, and 5 on the z axis) away.
This represents 1 cube diagonally away on both the top-down and side views.Then we get:
{[(5^2+5^2)^0.5]^2+5^2}^0.5 = ~8.66For a point that is at co-ordinates (10, 10, 10) we get:
{[(10^2+10^2)^0.5]^2+10^2}^0.5 = ~17.32There is only two instances of Pythagoras to find distance between two points in 3-d space.
- Gauss
Gauss,
I have a masters in mathematics, and I'm the first one that typed up using Pythagoras twice, in my original post, which you then replied to using it 3 times.My point was, that there are a couple of ways to do the same thing. You used a five foot cube instead of a 10 foot cube in your original post. If you want to use 5 foot cubes instead of 10 foot cubes, you have to double the distance obtained from the 5 foot cube to get the 10 foot cube (or, use pythagoras 4 times, twice on each five foot cube you are using for your measurements).
Every time you post you are either arguing that I was right the first time, or you're arguing you were wrong the first time.
I'm fine with either of those, but please don't lecture me that I was wrong at any point. I was right on my first post (pythagoras twice on a 10 ft cube), and I was right on my correction posts to you (that if you were going to use a 5 ft cube as you posted, you needed to do it four times because you had to use 2 ft cubes, not 1 cube, to get your 10 ft cube).
MDT
mdt,
At no point did I state you were wrong.
Also, at no point was I doing anything regarding a 10' cube. I don't know where you got that. I was addressing an adjacent 5' cube.
And yes, I was briefly mistaken regarding using Pythagoras three times and I later corrected myself.
I don't know why you kept trying to tell me about using Pythagoras 4 times, it didn't make sense. You only need to use it twice to calculate any distance.
Even in this post you keep referring to 'your 10 ft cube'. Again, I was not talking about a 10 ft cube. I only started talking about it because you kept saying I was.
Perhaps we simply misunderstood what the other was talking about.
- Gauss
Perhaps we simply misunderstood what the other was talking about.
- Gauss
Yes, your original post sounded like you were trying to measure two 5ft cubes for your 10 ft cube distance. Which works fine (touching lower right corner to upper left corner). I thought it was an odd way to calculate it, but it works if you do it 4 times (twice for each cube).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...why is it that ranged attackers can pick out a part of a foe that's away from the melee to avoid his -4 penalty, but a reach user cannot also attack those far-away parts?For the simple reason that the rules prohibit it. If you play by RAW, that is.
The enlarged bolded bit shows how these rules don't apply to the situation currently under discussion.Especially since reach weapons use the ranged weapon rules for determining cover.
When making a melee attack against a target that (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Forget it, they're rolling.
(In other words, when the Pythagorean theorem comes up in a combat thread, it's generally time to tiptoe out.)
...why is it that ranged attackers can pick out a part of a foe that's away from the melee to avoid his -4 penalty, but a reach user cannot also attack those far-away parts?For the simple reason that the rules prohibit it. If you play by RAW, that is.
The enlarged bolded bit shows how these rules don't apply to the situation currently under discussion.Especially since reach weapons use the ranged weapon rules for determining cover.
When making a melee attack against a target that (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.Forget it, they're rolling.
(In other words, when the Pythagorean theorem comes up in a combat thread, it's generally time to tiptoe out.)
Since it was clearly stated this was how it was handled at home due to a RAI belief, rather than a strict RAW belief, I fail to see how anyone can b+$%& and moan about us discussing the ramifications of ruling RAI instead of RAW. Rules Forums are for both RAW and RAI discussions.
Since it was clearly stated this was how it was handled at home due to a RAI belief, rather than a strict RAW belief, I fail to see how anyone can b++@* and moan about us discussing the ramifications of ruling RAI instead of RAW. Rules Forums are for both RAW and RAI discussions....why is it that ranged attackers can pick out a part of a foe that's away from the melee to avoid his -4 penalty, but a reach user cannot also attack those far-away parts?For the simple reason that the rules prohibit it. If you play by RAW, that is.
The enlarged bolded bit shows how these rules don't apply to the situation currently under discussion.Especially since reach weapons use the ranged weapon rules for determining cover.
When making a melee attack against a target that (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.Forget it, they're rolling.
(In other words, when the Pythagorean theorem comes up in a combat thread, it's generally time to tiptoe out.)
To be honest, I wasn't really referring to your little Pythagorean side quest, more the main topic of what the rules actually are, which appears to be still unclear to some.
Also, I didn't really notice any b#~!*ing going on in what you quoted - light-hearted digging perhaps..?
Sorry, probably just sensitive after dealing with people calling me a cheeser and whiner because I don't like the Free Action FAQ. The fact I'm a GM more than a player and don't like it from that perspective seems to do nothing to stop people from insulting me left and right. Sorry.
You mean that FAQ that I'm quietly but completely ignoring the existence of? Don't know what you're talking about :)
Gauss,
for those wondering i was the one pointing out:
CRB p196 wrote:
"Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you."
what triggered the other thread was the diagram:
CRB p194 Example #2
per RAW if you are using a reach weapon you CANNOT attack an adjacent foe with it-PERIOD.It's perfectly clear as day in this and makes the answer to this thread a big NO. This has nothing to do with math, realism, 2d, 3d, stabbing his face, tail, or butt or anything else. It's the DRAWBACK of a reach weapon. This limitation was probably put in place so reach weapons aren't superior to every other type of weapon but it really doesn't matter why, it only matters that again: per RAW if you are using a reach weapon you CANNOT attack an adjacent foe with it.
it doesn't matter if a creature occupies 4 squares or 100 squares. if even a single square it occupies is adjacent to you the creature is treated as adjacent to you regardless of the other 3 or 99 squares.
Now, natural reach is NOT a reach weapon it does not follow the same rules as a weapon with the "REACH" property.
CRB-196.
"Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature
with greater than normal natural reach (more than 5
feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it."
so while a character with a reach weapon can not threaten an adjacent large target he COULD threaten it with a non reach weapon or take a 5' step to position himself.
now this can get even more complicated when creature size, natural reach, and cover is involved such as CRB p194 Example #2.
In that example the ogre can use the natural reach and size rules to his advantage, and attack Merisiel while avoiding cover by figuring his attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon. Because he's attacking with reach (yes even though Merisiel is adjacent to him.)And he would still have cover from Merisiel unless she has 10+ reach and a NON reach weapon.
per RAW if you are using a reach weapon you CANNOT attack an adjacent foe with it-PERIOD.It's perfectly clear as day in this and makes the answer to this thread a big NO. This has nothing to do with math, realism, 2d, 3d, stabbing his face, tail, or butt or anything else. It's the DRAWBACK of a reach weapon.
Chill dude. You're spouting off like a librarian or school marm who just caught people chatting in the back corner of the library.
Nobody said it wasn't RAW, so chill your 'OMG Someone on the interwebs is wrong' nerves.
All the math/etc has been about interpreting RAI, not RAW. RAI the rules quoted affect medium creatures, based on the rulings for ranged weapons and attacks with thereof, it's probably not intended that if a gargantuan snake is coiled around you in a circle, and some part of it is 10 ft away, that you can't attack that piece because the tip of it's tail is within 5 ft.
Please note that under the current rules, a scorpion whip is the best reach weapon, as it is a reach attack and can use those rules to attack where a reach weapon cannot, including adjacent foes.
|
mdt,
In order to calculate the distance between two points in 3 dimensions you use Pythagoras twice. Here is a link
Lets assuming that the attacker is the 0,0,0 point and the target point is 5, 5, 5. (5 on the x axis, 5 on the y axis, and 5 on the z axis) away.
This represents 1 cube diagonally away on both the top-down and side views.Then we get:
{[(5^2+5^2)^0.5]^2+5^2}^0.5 = ~8.66For a point that is at co-ordinates (10, 10, 10) we get:
{[(10^2+10^2)^0.5]^2+10^2}^0.5 = ~17.32There is only two instances of Pythagoras to find distance between two points in 3-d space.
- Gauss
Gauss,
I have a masters in mathematics, and I'm the first one that typed up using Pythagoras twice, in my original post, which you then replied to using it 3 times.My point was, that there are a couple of ways to do the same thing. You used a five foot cube instead of a 10 foot cube in your original post. If you want to use 5 foot cubes instead of 10 foot cubes, you have to double the distance obtained from the 5 foot cube to get the 10 foot cube (or, use pythagoras 4 times, twice on each five foot cube you are using for your measurements).
Every time you post you are either arguing that I was right the first time, or you're arguing you were wrong the first time.
I'm fine with either of those, but please don't lecture me that I was wrong at any point. I was right on my first post (pythagoras twice on a 10 ft cube), and I was right on my correction posts to you (that if you were going to use a 5 ft cube as you posted, you needed to do it four times because you had to use 2 ft cubes, not 1 cube, to get your 10 ft cube).
MDT
Pythagoras in 3D is almost as simple as in 2D. In 3D, Pythagoras Theorem becomes H^2 = (X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2)^0.5
So the long diagonal of a 5'x5'x5' cube is:
D = (5^2 + 5^2 + 5^2)^0.5 = 75^0.5 ~ 8.66
for a 10'x10'x10' cube, the long diagonal is exactly double (300^0.5 = 2 x 75^0.5). You can actually pull 2 out as a factor in the formula to prove this if you replace 10 with 5x2.
I saw Pythagoras Theorem being smacked around and had to show the elegant way of working in 3D with it. You can derive the 3D formula easily by using variables and the 2D formula. Hope this helps.
Absolutely, I agree you can derive it rather easily.
However, having taught it in college and high school, my default assumption is 'other person never had advanced math', so I do it step by step the simplest way I can (which is harder via text). :)
Q: Do you threaten a square 10 feet away with a reach weapon?
A: Depends.
You can't attack an orc 10 feet away with a lognspear if a brick wall is between you and the orc.
You can't attack an adjacent creature because (in very simple terms for game function) you don't have the room.
If we assume a 10' wide Ogre, or any other 10' wide creature adjacent to you, you are still jammed and the near part of the ogre is no different than the wall.
The weak spot in this analysis is that you CAN attack the second orc in a line. Which I think leaves it to: you can't attack an adjacent creature no matter how big it is. But if the DM thinks it is obvious that you should be able to in circumstance X: you get to attack.
If you want RAW and nothing but RAW: no.
If you want the game played in the spirit of the game as intended: probably no, but maybe sometimes.
|
|
I saw Pythagoras Theorem being smacked around and had to show the elegant way of working in 3D with it. You can derive the 3D formula easily by using variables and the 2D formula. Hope this helps.Well technically it's still 2D, since the theorem only applies to triangles, a 2D object, but your Knowns are 2D objects on different planes.
Didn't Pythagoras sacrifice like a thousand cows after realizing that his theorem proved irrational numbers exist?
The cube root of 2 destroyed his ideology. I don't think he was the same afterwards.
He couldn't generate the cube root of 2 with a compass and ruler. It was easy for square roots.
|
I'd rule that a reach weapon can target any single square occupied by a creature's space, unless the only way to do so is through another square that the same creature occupies, as this would interfere with wielding it.
I would also consider it from a side view, so that I could target the 'head' of a huge creature as that top square is 10-feet away.
The discussion, as I understand it, is not disputing that, but has evolved into the topic of whether that is what is intended by the rule - the assumption seems to be that the designers may have written it contrary to what they intended.
I think.
RE: Ogres and space
No, they were still 10' space. 3.5 Ogres
They were much clearer about some things are Tall and some Long, which explains the difference in Reach between a large Horse and a large Ogre. But the space is the same for each.
|
|
RE: Ogres and space
No, they were still 10' space. 3.5 OgresThey were much clearer about some things are Tall and some Long, which explains the difference in Reach between a large Horse and a large Ogre. But the space is the same for each.
It's 3.0 that was different, not 3.5.
I think it boils down to the fact that the developers didn't write the Reach Weapon rules with the possibility that a creature could be both adjacent AND 10' away at the same time. Also, were they change from 3.0 to 3.5? In 3.0, tall Large creatures like Ogres only took up a 5' square.
I don't think that matters. The only difference would be that you can't attack ogres, but you can attack fire giants or dragons
I think the developers just took a gamist aproach: balance trumps realism. Reach weapons are already very powerful, even with reduced damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I accept "gamist" reasons generally, but suspension of disbelief is strained if there is no rationale offered. This isn't a board game, it's ostensibly a role-playing game in which, I assume, many things operate the way they might if they were real, so a certain level of suspension of disbelief is being maintained.Bu it¡s a Roleplaying GAME not a Roleplaying SIMULATION. It's a game where you roleplay a character, not a simulation where you roleplay a character. Actually, what you are trying to do, is a gamism approach to ignore the disavantage of reach weapons
The creature is M size and 10' away
The creature is L size and 10' away, and also 15' and 20' away; as long as I can hit one square, I can target him.
There is an M creature 10' away, but also an M creature 5' away.The only one I can't do is an L creature 10' away, but also 5' away, even though I can usually target one of his squares. There is a rules reason (technically) for this, but if the ONLY reason is "game rule" with no explanation whatsoever, suspension of disbelief is strained.
But the thing is, the L creature is not 5' AND 10' away, because the Large creature is not 10x10. An ogre is something like 3'x3' at best. Just like I'm using a 5'x5' space while I'm right now standing on a floor tile which is like 1'x1'.
An ogre "uses" a 10x10 square in a grid in combat, but it's not a 10x10 piece of solid flesh. Actually, the ogre is not even there while you hit. Remember how the ogre was 80 feet away right six seconds ago? Well, *while* he was approaching, in his own initiative turn, you *were* attacking the square where he would be six second laters (because your action in the first 6 seconds of the combat are simultaneous to his actions in the first 6 seconds of combat, it's not like he acts in six seconds while you are frozen in time, then you act while he is frozen too). Another fun fact is that you are attacking a square 10' ago, with a 7' glaive that you are actually holding two handed (so part of those 7' are *behind* your hands).
But in order to the game being playable, he have to abstract things. We abstract the fact that you are attacking air for 6 seconds while the ogre walk for 6 seconds coming to you, and he suffer the damage regardless. We abstract that you are attacking 10' away with a 5' glaive. We abstract damage, and the protection from the ogre's armor. We abstract the effect of reach weapons and the space occupied by larger htan normal creatures too.
The thing is, you are actually asking to be able to hit the ogre because you are attacking an arbitrary and invisible-in-game "square" from one of your arbitrary and invisible-in-game "corners", and then complaining because an arbitrary rule say it is not possible, to balance the effect of reach.
My suggestion is you play gridless. Play in the theater of mind, like many other games do (and like lot of us did before 3e came, and even in the begining of 3e), and thus you can resolve your situations through ocmmon sense and descriptions. But if you play with a grid, you'll find a lot of problems when you try to shoehorn a certain realistic stuff to the grid, while you ignore the whole lot of other unrealistic and abstract things we have. For example, you probably could attack that ogre if you move 2.5 feet backwards. It's a pity you can't move 2.5 feet in the game. Either you move 5, or you don't move at all. You could spend the next 5000 rounds moving 2.5 feet to your left, and 5000 rounds later, you still are in the same square. This is what happen when you try to move 5' steps in difficult terrain, for example.
Why can't that dwarf move 7 feet, only 5 or 10? The rules
Why does a horse occupy a 10'x10' space? The rulesCombat is abstract. This isn't diferent to being unable to move 3, 7 or 13 feet, only 5, 10 or 15. It is also not diferent to being able to attack a guy who is 10 feet away with a 7 feet halberd. Or being unable to target anything with your fireball except thd corner of an imaginary grid that your character can't see, spend your turn frozen while dome one is delaying, or not bring anle to dhare a 5'x5' space with another hhuman being. It makes sense, because it is a GAME, not a simulator.But the thing is, the L creature is not 5' AND 10' away, because the Large creature is not 10x10. An ogre is something like 3'x3' at best. Just like I'm using a 5'x5' space while I'm right now standing on a floor tile which is like 1'x1'.So which is it? The ogre does occupy a 10x10 space, because rules, and it's an abstraction, or he doesn't, because it's not an abstraction? It is fine that you disagree with me, but you are alternately telling me that "game logic" trumps "RL sense" and telling me it doesn't. In game logic, a creature that occupies more than one square occupies all of those squares for the purposes of all rules. The ogre does occupy the square 10' away, there's just a rules exception for targeting that square with a reach weapon.
So which is it? Does he occupy the square "because rules" or not, because "he's not actually 10x10"!
He is not 10x10, so any claim to be able to do it because "it makes sense" just doesn't make sense. If you are or you aren't able to attack that square has nothing to do with "making sense", it has to do with an abstract rule about grids, squares, corners and choosing spaces to attack. So the only reason you "could" attack that space is because the rules say so. Except the rules DON'T say so, they say you can't attack that creature if it is adjacent, which it is, by the rules.
Reach is very good, and not being able to attack adjacent creatures is the balancing rule that make them on par with non-reach weapons. When you have weapons that can attack both close and reach, you unbalance the rest of the weapons. See what happened with spiked chains in 3.5 and it costed a feat unlike a simple weapon longspear