DireMerc |
Quick question to clarify about reach.
See this map.
encounter map
Four kobolt zombies were at B4, C4, D4, E4.
They all moved forward going to B3, C3, D3 and E2.
Raskir (R) has a reach weapon. Would he get an attack of opportunity?
Archaeik |
If the movement started in the 4th row, the 3 that he threatened have only taken a 5ft step, and so did not provoke for their movement.
The difference in what you are asking, is that approaching a Reach wielder from the corner (which he does not threaten since it's 15 ft away) still provokes if the move is more than a 5ft step because it still requires you to move through the 10ft where he does threaten.
Gauss |
This has been discussed many times over.
The ruling that SKR made does not have any rules support but does make sense within the context of common sense.
However, many people do houserule back in the 3.5 exception. So while it may not technically apply to Pathfinder according to my poll ~90% (144 out of 161) of the people continue to use it.
Here is the poll.
Nefreet |
If an enemy is approaching you (beyond a five foot step) and you have reach, regardless of whether they're moving diagonally from 15 feet away to 5 feet away, they are crossing the 10 foot line at some point, and you would get an attack of opportunity.
But you still don't threaten 15 feet away in Pathfinder.
Finlanderboy |
If an enemy is approaching you (beyond a five foot step) and you have reach, regardless of whether they're moving diagonally from 15 feet away to 5 feet away, they are crossing the 10 foot line at some point, and you would get an attack of opportunity.
But you still don't threaten 15 feet away in Pathfinder.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
You have to move of of a threatened sqaure. So if you do not threaten the second diagnole per crb they can walk right up to you ro avoid that AoO.
Where does it say you do not threaten a second diagnole? I feel that is grey area. So I rule they do.
Nefreet |
I feel you're misunderstanding me.
Yes, if you are moving out of a threatened square, you're going to provoke an attack of opportunity.
I hope you don't think I'm disagreeing with you on that.
Likewise, a five foot step doesn't provoke. I've been careful to keep mentioning that.
But if an opponent is standing two diagonal squares away from you, and you only have 10 feet of reach, you don't threaten them.
They are 15 feet away from you.
Gauss |
Finlanderboy,
Pathfinder measures diagonals using the 5-10-5 rule. That is, the first diagonal is 5feet but the second counts as 10 feet. Thus, 5+10 = 15 and since the second diagonal is 15 feet away you do not threaten it.
This rule also existed in 3.5 but back in 3.5 there was a specific exception that allowed you to threaten the second diagonal. That exception is not present in the Pathfinder rules and as a result you do not threaten the second diagonal.
Of course, ~90% of people polled then use the 3.5 exception anyhow (some without realizing that it is not part of the Pathfinder rules).
Regarding Nefreet's statement that they are crossing from 15 to 5 feet and therefore they provoke, SKR had made a post awhile back stating that this is the case. Unfortunately, there is no rules support for this so it could be considered RAI but not RAW.
Nefreet |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I consider myself to be in the middle of the two groups.
Some ppl play that you threaten at 15' in all circumstances.
Some ppl play that you don't threaten at 15' in any circumstance.
I play that you don't threaten at 15', but if someone is using a move action to approach you diagonally, you can still get an AoO against them when they are crossing the 15'/5' threshold.
Because they're crossing 10' at some point, even if that point doesn't exist on the grid.
YMMV, I suppose.
HangarFlying |
Finlanderboy,
Pathfinder measures diagonals using the 5-10-5 rule. That is, the first diagonal is 5feet but the second counts as 10 feet. Thus, 5+10 = 15 and since the second diagonal is 15 feet away you do not threaten it.
This rule also existed in 3.5 but back in 3.5 there was a specific exception that allowed you to threaten the second diagonal. That exception is not present in the Pathfinder rules and as a result you do not threaten the second diagonal.
Of course, ~90% of people polled then use the 3.5 exception anyhow (some without realizing that it is not part of the Pathfinder rules).
Regarding Nefreet's statement that they are crossing from 15 to 5 feet and therefore they provoke, SKR had made a post awhile back stating that this is the case. Unfortunately, there is no rules support for this so it could be considered RAI but not RAW.
And anyone thinking they can move in on the diagonal for free will be in for a rude surprise when they suck that AoO they weren't expecting.
daimaru |
Finlanderboy,
Pathfinder measures diagonals using the 5-10-5 rule. That is, the first diagonal is 5feet but the second counts as 10 feet. Thus, 5+10 = 15 and since the second diagonal is 15 feet away you do not threaten it.
OK, so (to answer the original question) K4 was not threatened at E4 so moving to E3 did not provoke an attack of opportunity, but moving on to E2 would.
And on the second question (where this one wandered), if K3 did not move to D3, but K4 did (by other than a 5-foot step) then that would also provoke an AoO because at some point on the diagonal it moved through a threatened region.
Everyone in agreement?
Chris Lambertz Paizo Glitterati Robot |
claudekennilol |
It doesn't. But it does threaten 10 feet. Show me where movement rules are applied to the range of reach weapons.
Reach is a cube. Anything else results in game breaking absurdities. Deal with it and move on.
Please stop responding, you are going to confuse new players by telling them that 15' = 10'.
Krodjin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reach is a cube. This is a fact. Anything else breaks the entire operation of reach weapons or at best over complicates them.
I don't think you understand the grid based system. Pathfinder has omitted the rule from 3.5 that specifically permitted reach weapons to threaten the second diagonal; a square that is clearly 15 away according to the Pathfinder rule set.
That being said, the Developers have chimed in and made comments that moving from 15 to 5 on the diaganols should provoke because at some point the creature is moving across the 10' barrier.
Nefreet and Gauss have clearly got a grasp on things and done a very good job of explaining it for the uninitiated. Too bad they can't clear it up for the willfully ignorant.
Blakmane |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rushley, you are making this thread more complicated for no reason. Everything has been spelled out pretty clearly, by SKR no less.
a) RAW reach weapons can't attack diagonally.
b) RAI this is completely stupid, so everyone in the known universe houserules to either threaten diagonally or at least allow AOO moving in from that square.
The end. There's no argument here.
*edit*
Personal attacks do not make anyone sympathetic. I don't know what bad blood you have with Pogie, but this thread isn't the place to spew it everywhere.
Gauss |
Rushley, this is the rules forum. This is not the 'how should things work' forum.
So, we have the rules which state that you measure diagonal distance using the 5-10-5 method. This means the second square is 15feet (5+10).
We also have the Devs repeatedly stating that this is how it works.
Do I like this? No.
Do I use the 3.5 exception that SPECIFICALLY allowed you to hit the second diagonal with a reach weapon? Yes, but that is a house rule (albeit a common one).
If you are playing Pathfinder Society you have to deal with the fact that you do not threaten the second diagonal with a reach weapon. If you do not play Pathfinder Society feel free to use the 3.5 reach weapon exception.
Magda Luckbender |
If you are playing Pathfinder Society you have to deal with the fact that you do not threaten the second diagonal with a reach weapon. If you do not play Pathfinder Society feel free to use the 3.5 reach weapon exception.
Actually, I play and GM PFS frequently, and every GM I've seen uses Nefreet's approach. As do I. It comes up every session. I have yet to see a PFS GM allow anything to walk up to a reach weapon wielder on the diagonal, RAW or not. This is a clear case where the RAW is preposterous and allows absurd exploits, so everyone plays some variant of RAI.
Finlanderboy |
I allow second diagnals in PFS. Because the rules state they have to leave a threatened square to provoke.
I HAVE had players fight and bicker over being allowed to walk through the threatened square because they are not leaving a threatened square.
You can say it is a house rule to allow a second diagnal, but only with SKR providing his house rule can you prevent it from being silly
HangarFlying |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually Gauss, no I don't. Because PFS in Australia doesn't twist the rules to such absurdities so I can in fact threaten diagonally with a reach weapon.
The only time i've ever even see this raised in on the forum by a few people who for some reason want to ruin the game.
You could possibly be 100% correct, but that doesn't excuse your tone and attitude.
For the record, you're not correct.
seebs |
I don't think anyone wants to ruin the game.
The Paizo team have been really clear about this:
1. They have absolutely intentionally made reach weapons not threaten on their long diagonals.
2. Nonetheless, you can't abuse those to close without provoking an AoO, because you pass through the 10' mark even if there's no specific square for it.
This does not ruin the game.
Gauss |
Actually Gauss, no I don't. Because PFS in Australia doesn't twist the rules to such absurdities so I can in fact threaten diagonally with a reach weapon.
The only time i've ever even see this raised in on the forum by a few people who for some reason want to ruin the game.
So what you are saying is, according to you, PFS in Australia ignores the rules regarding second diagonals and reach weapons. Good for them, but that does not mean that they are not the rules.
I fully expect table variation in PFS on this issue since ~90% of people use the 3.5 exception (many without even realizing it). However, that is not the rules as they are currently written.
I think you may be having a difficult time with the concept of Rules vs House Rules and that we can discuss rules in a rules forum without actually running it that way in our own game. In order to properly house rule something you should understand what you are changing.
Existing Rule: reach weapons do not threaten the second diagonal. This has been confirmed by the Devs.
Developer House Rule: If you move from the second diagonal to the first diagonal you are passing through the 10' threatened area of a reach weapon user even if they do not threaten the second diagonal. Thus you provoke an AoO.
~90% of respondents House Rule: Just use the 3.5 exception which states you threaten the second diagonal.
Now, which of these are you and your table using? It sounds like you are using the House Rule of using the 3.5 exception.
Nobody is trying to "ruin the game". What we are doing is explaining the way the rules work in a rules forum.
Now, if you would like we could move to the House Rules forum and discuss house rules to fix the glaring problem of reach weapons and the second diagonal as currently written in Pathfinder.
However, that is not a discussion for this forum and frankly the best house rule for that (the 3.5 exception) already exists.
Pupsocket |
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/space-reach-threatened-area-te mplates
Sorry for no link I'm on my phone.
The source for those templates is John Reyst - a valuable contributor, but not an "official" guy.
As per the 5th printing of the Core rulebook, it's no longer ambiguous whether the 1-2-1-2 diagonal rule applies to reach, it's now a general rule for measuring distances, and it's no longer implied that it only counts for movement and range.
Natural reach, for some reason, gets the text
A creature with
greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack
of opportunity against you if you approach it, because
you must enter and move within the range of its reach
before you can attack it. This attack of opportunity is not
provoked if you take a 5-foot step.
But it doesn't actually get an exemption to how reach and counting squares work.
thaX |
My overall concern with Reach Weapons is the fact that you need to switch to a different weapon when the enemy is next to you. (Or continue to 5 foot step to hit every round)
I believe I shall rule in the AoO being provoked as the creature goes from 15' to 5' diagonally. Seems the proper intent of the use for Reach Weapons, a close to an otherwise exploit that seems to cropt up every now and again.
Krodjin |
thaX wrote:My overall concern with Reach Weapons is the fact that you need to switch to a different weapon when the enemy is next to you.Armour spikes will at least threaten the 5-foot range until you can step away.
A bite attack is nice as well. If an enemy closes, your full attack against them can be Bite - 5' Step - Reach Weapon. Sure, the bite is at -5, but who cares, it's a free attack.
Edit: Just don't step away on the diagonal! Otherwise you'd lose the ability to make your 2nd attack.
daimaru |
My overall concern with Reach Weapons is the fact that you need to switch to a different weapon when the enemy is next to you. (Or continue to 5 foot step to hit every round)
Yeah. If I were writing the rules I'd allow butt strokes with pole arms up close. For example, a naginata is a 1d8 x4 weapon. Following the example of a quarterstaff I'd drop that to 1d6 x2 up close. (I'd assume that the pointy end was still too far out to hit with, up close, so only one strike.)
AoO at 1d8 as your opponent closes, punch with the butt at 1d6 when it's your turn, 5-foot step back, and repeat. That's pretty much how it would really work.
Sigh, I'm not though. :) Maybe I could talk my DM into allowing it if I play my kitsune rogue?