Poll: Reach Weapons and the 2nd diagonal. Do you use the 3.5 exception?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 231 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

KainPen wrote:

no clue on legality part. I remember people saying a while back that the reach templates are it was included in the OLG

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#reachWeapons

it has the note there. It looks like it just was not carried over to pathfinder.

It is completely legal to use ANY game mechanic. Game mechanics are not copy-writable. Copying flavor text and wording can cause a lawsuit, however. That said the diagonal thing is part of the SRD. Paizo just changed it without realizing the issue it would cause - it happens.


Gauss wrote:

DonDuckie, awhile back I mentioned it was your game so you are free to house rule any way you wish. I thought we were discussing the merits of the different house rules. At times it seems that you (and others) treat SKR's house rule as if it were in the rules instead. Perhaps that is just misperception on my part.

As for 10' radius being less than half the square, Im not sure how you are getting that. Math states it is more than half. (A^2+B^2)^0.5 = C
The distance from the corner of the square a person is standing in to the far corner of the square 2 diagonal squares distant is (10^2+10^2)^0.5 = 14.1421... feet. If you have a reach of 10 feet measured from the same starting corner then you are reaching 10 feet out of 14.1421.... feet into that second square. Thus, it is about half of the second square.
How is that half of the second square? Well, the first square is 5' right? The second square is 10'? Ok, so...we have 10-5 out of 14.14... -5 = 5 out of 9.14.... feet. 5/9.14 = 0.54 which is greater than 0.5 (1/2). Thus, yes, it is more than half.

- Gauss

I think I see our difference now:

I don't think that the first diagonal IS 5 feet and the second is 10 feet.

I say the diagonal of the first square is 7.07 feet - and a 5' reach covers more than half of the 1st diagonal and therefore threatens.

So I see it as 10 foot reach covers 10-7.07=2.93 feet into 2nd diagonal - making it 2.93/7.07 < ½ and it doesn't threaten.

But both arguments have merits, I think. And I'm not talking PFS, I'm just debating houserules.

Liberty's Edge

Gauss wrote:
At times it seems that you (and others) treat SKR's house rule as if it were in the rules instead.

So for PFS, if SKR's ruling is just a house rule (not part of official FAQ or errata) then approaching along the diagonal against a reach weapon user to avoid any AoO is a legitimate tactic in PFS, correct?


yes DigitalMage


DonDuckie, Pathfinder declares the first square to be 5 feet and the second square to be 10 feet of distance (total 15'). So based on that what does a 10' reach give you? It gives you half of the second square.

As for our playing with math, I guess you do have an alternate route of determining it. But the fact is that a lack of the 3.5 exception still causes more problems than it solves.

- Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

DonDuckie, Pathfinder declares the first square to be 5 feet and the second square to be 10 feet of distance (total 15'). So based on that what does a 10' reach give you? It gives you half of the second square.

As for our playing with math, I guess you do have an alternate route of determining it. But the fact is that a lack of the 3.5 exception still causes more problems than it solves.

- Gauss

Does it solve a problem o_O?


DigitalMage wrote:
Gauss wrote:
At times it seems that you (and others) treat SKR's house rule as if it were in the rules instead.
So for PFS, if SKR's ruling is just a house rule (not part of official FAQ or errata) then approaching along the diagonal against a reach weapon user to avoid any AoO is a legitimate tactic in PFS, correct?

It may be possible to argue it breaks the "don't be a jerk" rule though :-)


yes the inablity to attack down a diagonal hallway, and huge gaping hole in defense of the person wielding it has.

the real fix to this issuse would be to use facing system but pathfinder does not have that. With Faceing there is no diagonal as the gird would be based on direction you are facing.

Liberty's Edge

Andy Brown wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
So for PFS, if SKR's ruling is just a house rule (not part of official FAQ or errata) then approaching along the diagonal against a reach weapon user to avoid any AoO is a legitimate tactic in PFS, correct?
It may be possible to argue it breaks the "don't be a jerk" rule though :-)

I was actually more interested in whether the GM could use it as a tactic against my Druid when wildshaped into a Dire Ape with 10' reach, one of the benefits of that form is the ability to normally get an AoO in if they charge or move and attack :)

Liberty's Edge

KainPen wrote:
the real fix to this issuse would be to use facing system but pathfinder does not have that. With Faceing there is no diagonal as the gird would be based on direction you are facing.

To do that though you would also lose what IMHO is the immense benefit of maps with pre-printed squares on them, like Paizo's map packs and flip mats.


the 3.5 expection only applies to medium and small creatures with reach weapons, as Large or bigger Dire ape it would not apply to you. as you have nautral reach at that size.

there would no hole in your defense and you can still attack down a dignonal hallway.


DigitalMage wrote:
KainPen wrote:
the real fix to this issuse would be to use facing system but pathfinder does not have that. With Faceing there is no diagonal as the gird would be based on direction you are facing.
To do that though you would also lose what IMHO is the immense benefit of maps with pre-printed squares on them, like Paizo's map packs and flip mats.

you can could still use them we used to do it all the time for 3.5 the only real change with faceing would be shield use and flanking rules. It make each changing faceing direction use 5ft of movement.

Liberty's Edge

KainPen wrote:

the 3.5 expection only applies to medium and small creatures with reach weapons, as Large or bigger Dire ape it would not apply to you. as you have nautral reach at that size.

there would no hole in your defense and you can still attack down a dignonal hallway.

Re attacking down a diagonal hallway, I agree that isn't as big an issue with natural reach as even if you can't attack the 2nd diagonal, you can still attack on the first diagonal

PF Core Rulebook p195 wrote:
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.

However, without the 3.5 exception a foe could still approach or charge a character with 10 foot natural reach without provoking an AoO by going in via the diagonal line. Or am I missing something?


yeah you would not get the aoo with natural reach but you can still attack said creature at 5ft with natural reach. small or medium creatures can not attack at all thus the complete whole in the defense.

now with a reach weapon and being large you can get aoo from the 3rd diagonal.

Liberty's Edge

KainPen wrote:
yeah you would not get the aoo with natural reach

Yeah, that sucks. I will ask the GM at the start of any PFS whether he house rules the 3.5 exception in or whether he plays RAW. Theoretically it should always be the latter for PFS and if it is I will have to position my character to avoid foes approaching on he diagonal, and try to take advantage of it myself.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

"I attack the orc with my glaive!"
"He is fifteen feet away, you can not reach him"
"Oh, well I take a five foot step towards him and swing my glaive"
"Sorry, now he is five feet away adjacent to you so you can't hit him"
*punches GM*


There is also the comment of a Dev that you can not wield a polearm and armor spikes at the same time (so not treatening with boths), it is not totally official but it would mean the polearm wielding guy definitely do not have any means to attack in the diagonal.

Silver Crusade

I both GM and play PFS games regularly with the PFS Online Collective. There are usually several reach weapon wielders in each group. We always use the "3.5 Exception" for S/M reach weapon users. Not doing so would lead to the absurd consequences described above.


Magda, then by all means please favorite the 'Yes' post on page 1.

Out of curiosity, how does the PFS feel about this kind of table variation? I thought you were not allowed to use house rules.

- Gauss


I always use the 3.5 exception for reach attacks.


DigitalMage wrote:
KainPen wrote:
yeah you would not get the aoo with natural reach
Yeah, that sucks. I will ask the GM at the start of any PFS whether he house rules the 3.5 exception in or whether he plays RAW. Theoretically it should always be the latter for PFS and if it is I will have to position my character to avoid foes approaching on he diagonal, and try to take advantage of it myself.

You'd be hard pressed to find a venture officer who wouldn't treat reach as a cube. Infact i dare you to do so. Ignoring diagonals is absurd and I can't believe this is even a discussion. It's an oversight. If I had a gm who told me reach weapons didn't work on diagonals I'd leave the table.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone know why PF are not allowed to use the same reach weapon rule as 3.5?

Or is it that they can, but for some insane reason choose not to?

Liberty's Edge

I know it comes directly from Jason, but trying to understand why leads to Lovecraftian levels of madness.

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Does anyone know why PF are not allowed to use the same reach weapon rule as 3.5?

Or is it that they can, but for some insane reason choose not to?

I don't believe the text is in the SRD, however there was nothing stopping Paizo using words of their own to describe the rule (game mechanics can't be copyrighted, only the expression of them).

Personally, I think it was perhaps an oversight, but SKR's post here would seem to imply it was intentional.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Does anyone know why PF are not allowed to use the same reach weapon rule as 3.5?

Or is it that they can, but for some insane reason choose not to?

If it ain't broke, they can fix that. :)


I have always been bothered by the idea that small and medium creatures have the same reach, especially with reach weapons. I just cannot see a gnome threatening the same area as a human! This rule glitch gives an option. Allow medium creatures to reach the corners with a reach weapon. Then, allow small creatures to attack/threaten the closer diagonal, even with a reach weapon.

Why do people think?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

It's back!!! The 3.5 reach weapon exception has been officially re-introduced into Pathfinder!

While one cannot be sure that this poll had any bearing on this decision I still want to thank everyone that voted.

New FAQ/Errata!!

FAQ/Errata wrote:

10-Foot Reach and Diagonals: I’m confused about reach and diagonals. I heard somewhere online that you don’t threaten the second diagonal with a 10-foot reach but that you somehow get an attack of opportunity when opponents move out of that square, but the Rules Reference Cards show that you do threaten the second diagonal. Which one is correct?

The cards are correct. As an exception to the way that diagonals normally work, a creature with 10 feet of reach threatens the second diagonal. These changes will be reflected in the next errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like useful erratas even if late!

Shadow Lodge

Congrats Gauss!

:)


Giggidy. That's beautiful.

Silver Crusade

149 to 18 is a pretty healthy dose of PF players 'voting with their feet'.

Nice one Gauss, you've done the community a service. : )

201 to 231 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Poll: Reach Weapons and the 2nd diagonal. Do you use the 3.5 exception? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.