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

[Gauss]

Back in 3.5 reach weapons could hit the 2nd square on a diagonal due to the exception below. In Pathfinder they cannot because that exception was removed.

This is the 3.5 exception:

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.)

Note: This no longer affects whether or not creatures coming in on the diagonal provoke an AoO since SKR ruled that creatures moving in from the 2nd square to the 1st square on the diagonal still provoke an AoO because they cross the 10' threatened 'band'. SKR ruling

I for one houserule the exception back into Pathfinder.

So this is a poll to see how many people houserule the exception back into their games or that want the exception placed back into PF rules. Please post a comment AND favorite the vote of your choice.

- Gauss

[Gauss]

Vote: Yes! I use the 3.5 exception.

[Gauss]

Vote: No! I do not use the 3.5 exception.

[Gauss]

Vote: What? There was a change? Why was I not informed?

(This is a joke option.)

[Darksol the Painbringer]

You like talking to your self too much Gauss...But to save what little sanity you have left on the subject, I will participate.

I do agree that it should have to be done, and it is how we've always run it in our games. Many people would rule that Pathfinder is based off of 3.5 and what isn't expanded upon in Pathfinder, yet is explained in 3.5, still means that 3.5 rules are included in Pathfinder.

For those who are new to the game, and/or are not privy to the previous editions of the general Dungeon Crawling game that is D&D, they would rule otherwise, and they would technically not be wrong, since they do not have access to such knowledge. At the same time...

[Gauss]

Darksol, very funny but seriously, this keeps cropping up. Even d20pfsrd didnt realize there was a change as recently as today.

That is why I created this. I wonder how many people still use the 3.5 rule in this case.

BTW, you didnt favorite one of the votes. :D

- Gauss

[Nicos]

yes I use the 3.5 exception, not because it is how it was in 3.5 but caue it is the healthier way to go.

[Gauss]

Nicos, thank you..did you hit the favorite button on your vote?

- Gauss

[Darksol the Painbringer]

I suppose it would crop up when you have people who don't already have a precedent. That is to say that they aren't wrong in technicality, but RAI would say 3.5 is the precedent to go, and is as such.

Of course, it should be written in the book for consistency purposes. Whether that will ever occur any time soon, who knows. But I don't think it's anything to lose your head over. :)

*Edit* And I favorited the proper post. An interesting way to make a poll if you ask me.

[Gauss]

Have I given the impression that I am losing my head over this? Hmmm, and here I thought I was just doing a simple poll out of curiousity.

- Gauss

[Ravingdork]

Yes I do.

[Furious Kender]

Ravingdork wrote:

Yes I do.

In PFS I've never seen anyone claim you don't threaten diagonals, but now I see that you're right and you threaten apparently half the square.

Now I get to print out yet another web post due to them adding an exception to the OA rules to fix their removal of an exception to the reach rules.

I love it when they change rules that work and make things more complicated than they needed to be.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

I only found out that the rule was different by reading it on these boards. I was horrified!

At first, it meant that you could charge a reach weapon wielder and provoke an AoO if you approached him orthogonally but not diagonnally! This was absurd!

When SKR weighed in (as linked above) he restored some measure of sanity, but since the entire concept of AoOs relies on 'threatened squares' then the 'solution' left us with a situation where a reach weapon wielder now threatens a square....if a creature leaves that square in a certain direction....but not otherwise?

Within the last few days SKR has posted on this subject again. Please forgive my poor search skills; I hope that one of you knows what post I mean and quotes it here. What he essentially says (if I'm reading between the lines correctly) is this:-

-the reach weapon rule was deliberately changed in PF so that the corner squares (which are 15-feet away under movement rules) cannot be reached with (10-foot) reach weapons. It seems that the impact on diagonal AoOs never occurred or was deemed unimportant

-when the diagonal AoO issue was made clear SKR saw it was absurd ('you don't teleport from 15-feet to 5-feet to avoid provoking'), so he created his solution

-in the recent post he seems to say that, because the change from the 3.5 rule to the PF rule was deliberate and not a mistake, it was beyond the purview of a FAQ to 'change' a rule; FAQs are to clarify what a written rule was intended to mean

-SKR seems to be saying that although the 3.5 rule is 'simpler' (I'm reading 'better' here), we're stuck with the PF version officially

I get the impression that SKR knows we use the 3.5 version even if we are aware of the change.

I'm doing a lot of reading between the lines here, and if I've inadvertantly misrepresented his views I apologise and hope SKR will put me right, but these are my sincere beliefs.

I definately use the 3.5 version; it is simpler to explain and use. It's just better.

[Gauss]

Malachi: I am hoping that if enough people vote (yes, click the plus thing above for all of you who havent) maybe just maybe the developers will realize this is a thing that is really wanted.

- Gauss

[Malachi Silverclaw]

On Tuesday in the 'Ending Movement With a Diagonal' thread, SKR 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

Found it!

@Gauss; this poll is a great idea, and I like how you've done it. : )

[Gauss]

Thanks Malachi, now we just need people who post yes to actually CLICK yes.

- Gauss

[Raymond Lambert]

So far, all the DMs who were not sure on this were kind enough to hear me out and agreed with me in the end that I should be able to take AoO in that 2nd diagonal. Especially good since I have 2 summoners(with eidolons) and 2 Alc/Bbn that together total 5 bodies using reach. The funny thing about this timing is that I was thinking about making new characters use great swords instead since they do more damage. I will gladly print out that page in cease I stumble across someone who needs more convincing than how I can persuade them.

[Azaelas Fayth]

I use the exception. Mainly because I can tell you polearms and such can reach further than you think. Especially in the hands of someone well trained.

Though if they were to use lunge* they wouldn't get a third diagonal square.

*Can't remember if it is legal or not...

[Bruunwald]

No grid.

Terrains.

Tape measure.

Happy!

[Azaelas Fayth]

Bruunwald wrote:

No grid.

Terrains.

Tape measure.

Happy!

I would love that if it wasn't for the need to build so much terrain for my worlds...

[Midnight_Angel]

If I have to use grids, then yes; I do.
The 'invisible' 10-foot band around you causes more hiccups than it solves.

[DigitalMage]

Furious Kender wrote:

I love it when they change rules that work and make things more complicated than they needed to be.

Yep, its this sort of stuff that makes me not able to fully embrace PF despite all the great improvements they made over 3.5, and so I stick with 3.5 and maybe ponder about a PF 2nd edition.

[Charlie Bell]

No disrespect to JJ and SKR, but those rulings are way wonky and counterintuitive.

I also got the impression that those rulings were their own table rulings, not an authoritative clarification. In other words, possibly not required to be applied to individual GM rulings in PFS.

[3.5 Loyalist]

If the weapon has reach, it has reach out to its reach. It is easy to get too focused on grids and numbers and detached from the flow of the combat, describing what is happening and rolling those hits and misses.

Reach for my games is reach, the angles don't precisely matter, but you don't have reach directly behind you, unless you find the mighty magical Arsespear artifact. We also do facing, but grids are less important because our fantasy worlds are not just five foot squares.

[LazarX]

Gauss wrote:

Back in 3.5 reach weapons could hit the 2nd square on a diagonal due to the exception below. In Pathfinder they cannot because that exception was removed.

This is the 3.5 exception:

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.)

Note: This no longer affects whether or not creatures coming in on the diagonal provoke an AoO since SKR ruled that creatures moving in from the 2nd square to the 1st square on the diagonal still provoke an AoO because they cross the 10' threatened 'band'. SKR ruling

I for one houserule the exception back into Pathfinder.

So this is a poll to see how many people houserule the exception back into their games or that want the exception placed back into PF rules. Please post a comment AND favorite the vote of your choice.

- Gauss

I think people are simply getting extreme on what they want for reach weapons. Basic fact of life... wargames impose limits and Pathfinder is directly descended from minatures wargaming.

The 3.5 exception was wonky and had no foundation for it's implementation, I'm very much in the mode for streamlining exceptions when they don't serve a critical purpose. This is one of them that was better left behind in the ashes of 3.X.

[Ganymede425]

LazarX wrote:

I think people are simply getting extreme on what they want for reach weapons.

So you feel that people are unreasonable or irrational in prefering the 3.5 rule?

Quote:

The 3.5 exception was wonky and had no foundation for it's implementation

By saying there is no foundation for the 3.5 exception, are you saying that there is no purpose for it? In other words, are you saying that the 3.5 rule was completely arbitrary and served no interest?

Quote:

I'm very much in the mode for streamlining exceptions when they don't serve a critical purpose.

Do you feel the same way about the exception that allows dodge bonuses from different sources to stack?

[Gauss]

LazarX, feel free to put a favorite next to 'no' then. We need an accurate tally.

Digitalmage, Azaelas Fayth, Ravingdork, and Nicos: Please hit the favorite button next to 'yes'. Just putting in a message is not enough. We need numbers. :)

- Gauss

[DigitalMage]

Gauss wrote:

Digitalmage, Azaelas Fayth, Ravingdork, and Nicos: Please hit the favorite button next to 'yes'. Just putting in a message is not enough. We need numbers. :)

Well technically, as I only play PF for PFS and I have now been made aware that dropping the exception was intentional, I theoretically have to vote "No" even if I don't agree with the exception being dropped.

[Gauss]

DigitalMage: Perhaps I should have put in 'want to use'. Point is, if you think the rule is a good idea you should vote yes. If you think it is a bad idea you should vote no. :)

- Gauss

[The Saltmarsh 6]

I get round this tricky problem by using a battle mat that has hexs printed on it
But i would use this rules as it makes sense to me

[DigitalMage]

Gauss wrote:

DigitalMage: Perhaps I should have put in 'want to use'. Point is, if you think the rule is a good idea you should vote yes. If you think it is a bad idea you should vote no. :)

- Gauss

In which case I will change my vote :)

[Lab_Rat]

Just going to leave this wonderfully appropriate link from SKR. It only took years but we finally got a reply from the Devs to this exact question.

Edit: Oh...the Poll...YES

[littlehewy]

Until I read SKR's post that Lab_Rat linked above, I was definitely a yes voter. The sole reason being that I'd rather err by giving reach weapons a little more distance than by letting anyone avoid a reach weapon wielder's AoO by approaching along a diagonal.

I have to admit, though, that SKR's ruling satisfies me on both counts.

So, sorry to be a pain in your quest for change Gauss, but I vote no.

Edit: although looking at the way the poll has started, one more vote for no probably won't affect your results much, there are quite a few more yesses so far :)

[Mergy]

My one issue with SKR's ruling is the inability to flank diagonally with a reach weapon.

[Humphrey Boggard]

We just use the 3.5 exception and call it a day. IIRC when it was pointed out at the table that PF doesn't have that rule we all had a hearty laugh and got back to the game.

[Ezekiel W]

I use the 3.5 exception.

I think simple and easily recalled abstractions have a place in what is not generally regarded as a rules-light RPG.

I can't imagine that 5+ years ago this rules change could have helped promote the release of PFRPG: "It's like 3.5, but with phantom squares!"

[LazarX]

Disclosure:

In all my years of RPGA gaming and judging which included Living City, Living Force, Living Greyhawk, plus Living Death, Living Arcanis, Legends of the Shining Jewel, plus numerous private games... I can not remember a single case of this "3.5 exception" ever coming into play.

[LazarX]

Ganymede425 wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I think people are simply getting extreme on what they want for reach weapons.

So you feel that people are unreasonable or irrational in prefering the 3.5 rule?

Quote:

The 3.5 exception was wonky and had no foundation for it's implementation

By saying there is no foundation for the 3.5 exception, are you saying that there is no purpose for it? In other words, are you saying that the 3.5 rule was completely arbitrary and served no interest?

Quote:

I'm very much in the mode for streamlining exceptions when they don't serve a critical purpose.

Do you feel the same way about the exception that allows dodge bonuses from different sources to stack?

Answering in reverse order.

Not relevant to the question at hand. And there are exceptions and then there are exceptions.

The real problem with the 3.5 exception unlike that of the dodge bonus is that it generates a direct rules conflict with movement. Diagnonal movement is a wonky buisness because this is a wargame which heavily abstracts measurement. You have to have a consistent rule of how distances are handled in diagonal measurement. Using one rule for movement and another for reach, is something that's far more arbitrary in that you are setting up a rules contradiction with how distance is measured. If a two step diagonal is 15 feet for one purpose, it shouldn't shrink down to 10 for another.

If you're going to shrink 15 feet down to 10 for polearms, why not for spell ranges as well, why not also for movement? Doing it only for one measure is the height of being arbitrary.

[Nicos]

LazarX wrote:

Disclosure:

In all my years of RPGA gaming and judging which included Living City, Living Force, Living Greyhawk, plus Living Death, Living Arcanis, Legends of the Shining Jewel, plus numerous private games... I can not remember a single case of this "3.5 exception" ever coming into play.

That is perfectly reasonable, what is the point to chrage diagonally if the defender would have his AoO anyways.

When the rule is eliminate every time The Pcs encoutner a plearm wielder enemy they will just flank diagonally. everytime a PC use apoelar the Dm would charge diagonally.

[Ganymede425]

Quote:

Not relevant to the question at hand. And there are exceptions and then there are exceptions.

It is relevant to understanding your position on the issue. I'm trying to feel out your reasoning.

Quote:

The real problem with the 3.5 exception unlike that of the dodge bonus is that it generates a direct rules conflict with movement. Diagnonal movement is a wonky buisness because this is a wargame which heavily abstracts measurement. You have to have a consistent rule of how distances are handled in diagonal measurement. Using one rule for movement and another for reach, is something that's far more arbitrary in that you are setting up a rules contradiction with how distance is measured. If a two step diagonal is 15 feet for one purpose, it shouldn't shrink down to 10 for another.

I think you're using the word "arbitrary" wrong. You're using it to mean "inconsistent" when it actually means "random" or "without rationalle."

You are correct in noting that this would generate an inconsistency, but inconsistency is not inherently bad; exceptions to a general rule are not, by themselves, problems.

Do you have a justification for why this particular exception to a general rule is a bad thing? Do you feel people would be confused by it? Is the exception too complicated? Does it produce game-breaking unintended consequences?

Quote:

If you're going to shrink 15 feet down to 10 for polearms, why not for spell ranges as well, why not also for movement? Doing it only for one measure is the height of being arbitrary.

People in this thread have articulated a very specific rationalle for why this rule was implemented in 3.5, and why they continue to use it in Pathfinder. This rationalle applies only in the very specific situation of reach weapons. In light of that, do you still feel justified in describing it as without rationalle or random?

[Ravingdork]

Gauss wrote:

Digitalmage, Azaelas Fayth, Ravingdork, and Nicos: Please hit the favorite button next to 'yes'. Just putting in a message is not enough. We need numbers. :)

- Gauss

I'm not sure why it matters. The Favorite function was not meant to be used in that way, and I don't believe the designers are likely to take much notice on account of it unless dragged here by their noses (as is so often done on these boards).

I also make a personal policy of favoriting only developer ruling posts, so that they are easier to find. I don't need to muddy up my personal archives on silly endeavors such as this.

Nevertheless, I will support what you are trying to do. Know that I will be removing my mark again should this go on long enough without an appropriate response.

[Gauss]

Thank you RD. Since there is no way to do a proper poll on this website this is the closest thing I could come up with. I guess we could hit FAQ plenty of times but they would just answer with 'no FAQ required' since it is not intended as a way to vote either. Honestly, I doubt we will get a response, but we should have some means to let the developers know what the 'will of the people' is.

- Gauss

[Azaelas Fayth]

Gauss wrote:

LazarX, feel free to put a favorite next to 'no' then. We need an accurate tally.

Digitalmage, Azaelas Fayth, Ravingdork, and Nicos: Please hit the favorite button next to 'yes'. Just putting in a message is not enough. We need numbers. :)

- Gauss

I was one of the first few to favorite it...

[Gauss]

Ahhhh, your alias. That confused me. :) Sorry.

- Gauss

[Azaelas Fayth]

Gauss wrote:

Ahhhh, your alias. That confused me. :) Sorry.

- Gauss

No Problem.

Though I will be offering my players either the 3.5 exception or the method I would personally prefer for simplicity.

[Zenogu]

Yes. Didn't even know about that until i read this.

[Gauss]

It appears many people do not Zenogu. Esp those of us coming from 3.5. Even d20pfsrd was surprised by it and only discovered the difference yesterday. As a result all of the people that had been using the d20pfsrd reach weapon templates will now find them changed to the PF rule and will discover the change. That is why I am curious how many people house rule this.

So please, favorite the yes vote at the top of the thread.

- Gauss

[Ravingdork]

Gauss wrote:

Even d20pfsrd was surprised by it and only discovered the difference yesterday. As a result all of the people that had been using the d20pfsrd reach weapon templates will now find them changed to the PF rule and will discover the change.

Say it isn't so! *wails incoherently and runs away*

[Gauss]

ROFLMAO Ravingdork. My point is just that this provoked my curiousity as to how many people use the 3.5 rule (even if they do not realize it).

- Gauss

[Azaelas Fayth]

There are(were) templates!?