Question on Straddling Reach Zones


Rules Questions


I ran into this issue with my group last game, and we've yet to come to a decision on how to handle this.

As background, my Samurai using a Naginata was enlarged, giving him the 10ft area he cannot attack, and then 20ft reach weapon area.

Another large enemy was straddling the inner and reach weapon zones as such-
.,,,,..
,,MM,,,
..mm..,
......,
..SS..,
..SS..,

S is my Samurai, mm is the half of the large monster in my 10' no hit zone, and MM is the other half of the monster, with , representing areas I could hit, and .. representing areas I could not.

Question 1. Can I even try attacking it?

Question 2. Does it provide cover to itself?

To keep the game moving, we ruled it provided cover to itself and I took a -4 to hit, but I was wondering what other opinions are on this matter.


The enemy is in a valid area to be attacked, so you can attack it. That's how I'd rule it. I wouldn't get too much into whether a creature can provide cover to itself; it gets a bit complicated and starts slowing things down.

YMMV


I think it does technically provide cover for itself. The square you are attacking goes through an occupied square.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Cover to *itself*???
I don't expect this situation is covered in the rules, so there is doubtless no RAW solution.

But IMHO it is absurd to have the creature providing cover to itself. If you can legally attack any square of the creature, you should be able to attack normally - even if it is half-in, half-out of your attack zone because of the limitations of reach.

Also, regarding polearms, it makes logical sense to be able to shift your grip further up the haft to have a shorter attack range. I know, I know, nothing in the rules allows this. But in a borderline case as here, it seems eminently reasonable for a normal attack to be possible.


Wheldrake wrote:

Cover to *itself*???

I don't expect this situation is covered in the rules, so there is doubtless no RAW solution.

But IMHO it is absurd to have the creature providing cover to itself. If you can legally attack any square of the creature, you should be able to attack normally - even if it is half-in, half-out of your attack zone because of the limitations of reach.

Also, regarding polearms, it makes logical sense to be able to shift your grip further up the haft to have a shorter attack range. I know, I know, nothing in the rules allows this. But in a borderline case as here, it seems eminently reasonable for a normal attack to be possible.

This is how my group has ruled it. A similar situation is a medium creature wielding a reach weapon adjacent to a large creature. We envision it as stabbing/swinging upward.

Also think of things in a 3D space, there is a square you can target that's 10 ft off the ground that's not being blocked.

*imagine this as OPs scenario from the side

SS__xX
SS__XX

the non-capital x is the square that's 15 feat away.


Let's take a look:

Combat wrote:

Reach Weapons

Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

Weapons wrote:
Reach Weapons: A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

Since you're enlarged and using a reach weapon, you can make melee attacks against a creature 15 feet or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

In the OP's situation, the enemy is 10 feet away from the samurai. Thus, the samurai may not attack it. The size of the enemy is not relevant for this purpose.


I think the situation is covered adequately with existing rules. It's not so absurd that a creature would provide cover to itself - imagine your weapon is so long that you can only reach a dragon's wings, but its head and arms are in the way.

Anyway, here's the RAW:

Quote:

Cover

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). 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.

Quote:

Big Creatures and Cover

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.

So it goes like this:

1) pick any square that the creature occupies into which you can make a melee attack
2) pick any square you occupy, and pick any corner of that square
3) draw four line between the corner you picked and the four corners of the square picked in step 1
4) if any of those four lines passes through a square occupied by a creature, the creature has cover against your attack

In the situation diagrammed in the initial post, it's impossible to make any choice of squares/corners that doesn't grant cover.

It doesn't make any difference, RAW, that the creature occupying the squares is the same creature being attacked. Using my example from before, the dragon's neck gets in the way of the haft of your spear, making it difficult to hit the dragon's wings with the point.


Cover doesn't enter into the equation for the OP's situation; the enemy is too close to attack at all.

Also, if I'm reading your explanation correctly, any Medium creature would grant cover to itself against opposing attacks at all times, as there'd always be at least one line passing from their opponent's chosen square through its own square to reach the opposite corner. This is clearly not what was intended.


blahpers wrote:

Cover doesn't enter into the equation for the OP's situation; the enemy is too close to attack at all.

Also, if I'm reading your explanation correctly, any Medium creature would grant cover to itself against opposing attacks at all times, as there'd always be at least one line passing from their opponent's chosen square through its own square to reach the opposite corner. This is clearly not what was intended.

The square can't provide cover for itself, but other squares the creature occupies can.


The rules say:

Quote:
Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can't strike at their natural reach or less.

The enemy is both 15 feet away and 10 feet away, but he is allowed to strike the part of it that is 15 feet away.

If it were true that he could not attack it at all, then a medium creature in the following circumstance could also not attack with a reach weapon:

_EE
_EE
P__

where E is a large enemy, P is a PC with a reach weapon, and _ are empty squares. It would be silly to say the PC can't attack the enemy. However, in that case the enemy provides itself partial cover.

Grand Lodge

You say "silly" while I say "reasonable."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jeff,

So if RupminRufus's 'E's were each a separate creature, 2 of them could be attacked (albeit with cover from the closest E) but if it is all one creature it can't be attacked?

That doesn't seem reasonable to me.


blahpers wrote:
Cover doesn't enter into the equation for the OP's situation; the enemy is too close to attack at all.

Ignore the misunderstanding. How would you answer if the creature was 10 & 15' away?


RumpinRufus wrote:
Quote:

Big Creatures and Cover

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.

It doesn't say any square you can attack, it says any square of the creature. You can make a melee attack against the creature. You can pick one of the front squares of the creature to determine cover. It does not have cover in that square, so you can attack the creature in the square you can reach.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It seems to me that if any part of the adversary is in an attackable space, you should be able to hit it.

If the adversary were to take a 5' step closer, it couldn't be hit.

I seriously doubt there is any RAW ruling to dispute this interpretation. Saying the creature "provides cover for itself" is intrinsically silly, but that is of course a subjective interpretation, not RAW.

Three opinions are present here:
1) you can hit it normally
2) it provides cover for itself, you can hit it at -4
3) it is inside your reach, and you can't hit it

Seriously, this being an iffy area, why not just let the player hit his foe?

Since interpretations appear to vary and RAW is not sufficiently explicit, the only good answer is to "expect table variance". The DM will have to call it.

Grand Lodge

Dave Justus wrote:

Jeff,

So if RupminRufus's 'E's were each a separate creature, 2 of them could be attacked (albeit with cover from the closest E) but if it is all one creature it can't be attacked?

That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Yes, because you can reach around a person to hit behind them. Reaching through them to hit their backside, not so much.

Dark Archive

A creature providing cover for itself is ridiculous. Just as there is no facing or body part targeting there is no providing cover because "this part of my body was in the way of the part you attacked".


Jeff Merola wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

Jeff,

So if RupminRufus's 'E's were each a separate creature, 2 of them could be attacked (albeit with cover from the closest E) but if it is all one creature it can't be attacked?

That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Yes, because you can reach around a person to hit behind them. Reaching through them to hit their backside, not so much.

Well, there isn't any facing in pathfinder, and you certainly can't hit the farthest 'E' anyway, since it is 15' away.

More descriptive to me, is swinging my polearm at their right side, even though it is their left that is closest to me (and hence the attack is a bit more difficult, because I have make sure that the pole of my weapon isn't blocked by that left arm that is inside my reach. Alternatively, in some cases it seems to me it could indeed be angling my long spear through their legs to poke their backside, although that is getting a little dirty.


blahpers wrote:


Combat wrote:

Reach Weapons

Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

Weapons wrote:
Reach Weapons: A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

It seems that the medium sized PC who is adjacent to an ogre and wielding a Longspear can't attack the ogre because it is, after all, in an adjacent square. By extension, I don't think that the OP can attack at all. This seems harsh but actually makes sense- what are you doing, attacking sideways, ignoring the opponent who is crowding you out? Attacking *over* the opponent, through... Itself, somehow (that's not how solid objects work).

You attack the creature, not a square that it occupies. It's adjacent (or quasi-adjacent, in the case of the enlarged samurai), therefore you can't attack it.

Liberty's Edge

The monster is 10 feet away. The Samurai cannot attack 10 feet away. The Samurai cannot attack the monster.

The rule on big creatures and cover only refers to determining cover, not whether the target is a valid target.


Cyrus Lanthier wrote:
You attack the creature, not a square that it occupies. It's adjacent (or quasi-adjacent, in the case of the enlarged samurai), therefore you can't attack it.
Quote:
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

Normal is any opponent within 5'. Reach is opponents 10' away, but not those 5' away. A large ogre adjacent to you is both. Since reach specifies 10' but not adjacent, then with reach you cannot attack the ogre because he is adjacent, which is specifically barred from reach weapons. If there was 4 orcs instead, you could attack the 2 distant orcs with cover from the front orcs however.


It's completely silly to claim it's impossible to attack a huge creature, but perfectly legal to attack a tiny creature that's in the exact same square as the huge creature.

The text about not being able to attack a creature up to 10 feet away with a large reach weapon was written with the assumption that you're attacking a creature who occupies one square. The same text also explicitly allows you to attack creature that is 15 feet away, which in this case could be the exact same creature.

In this case, RAW is contradictory because it was written with the assumption of medium or smaller creatures. So let's use common sense. If you could attack a medium-sized creature that is in a certain square, you can attack a creature of any other size that is in that exact same square.


I agree RAI you can attack.

I think RAW you can't.


blahpers wrote:

the enemy is too close to attack at all.

NO. part of the enemy is in a squares he can attack.

Liberty's Edge

RumpinRufus wrote:
It's completely silly to claim it's impossible to attack a huge creature....

When is it ever helpful to refer to your opponent's position as silly during a debate or discussion? I've made the point of trimming your post to demonstrate the effect that it has on the reader: to get to this phrase and then stop reading.


If a bear has you up against a wall so you can't back up, you're saying your longspear is still a viable option because the bear is big? Explain to me how I'm being silly.

RAW clearly says you can't attack it. The bear is adjacent, therefore it doesn't matter that it's "also" 10' away (which isn't how distance works in any normal sense, but let's ignore that for the moment) and thus (arguably) threatened by you- it's adjacent. And you can't attack an adjacent foe.

The normal usage of a phrase like "10' away" (in the case of the enlarged samurai) is that you measure from the closest point on the two objects in question. The game has not provided us a new definition of distance, though I suppose you could interpret distance in Pathfinder in this way.

However, let us assume that you *can* attack the bear (or ogre, or whatever) for a moment. Observe the diagram below, then ask yourself the following questions, assuming that everyone is wielding reach weapons: who can attack who (without moving)?

S:Samurai (enlarged)
x:Open square
o:Orc
g:goblin

xxxx
SSgx
SSxo
xxxx

The orc cannot attack the Goblin, nor the goblin the orc. This is uncontroversial (I hope).

The orc can attack the Samurai. This is uncontroversial.

Can the Goblin attack the Samurai? Under this interpretation, yes, on the grounds that at least one square the Samurai occupies is not adjacent.

Can the Samurai attack the goblin? Well, no, nobody is arguing for that.

Can the Samurai attack the orc? It seems that the consensus is no, but under this interpretation of distance, the answer ought to be yes, on the grounds that a square the Samurai is in is not within 10' of the orc- that is to say that he attacks "from" one of the left-hand squares. Maybe the Samurai is giving the orc cover against his own attack (*this* seems somewhat silly), but he ought to be able to attack, if this is how distance is defined (assuming that the distance from a to b is equal to the distance from b to a, which I hope is an axiom).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Question on Straddling Reach Zones All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.