Happy Holidays from the Pathfinder Design Team!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I do not agree with the "fix" to the diagonal reach question. The second diagonal rule should be universal. It works for movement, range, and AoE, but for some odd reason reach is the exception?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So don't use it.


Mark Seifter wrote:
@Undone: The FAQ doesn't change anything about reaches greater than 10 feet. All it does is let someone with exactly 10 feet of reach threaten that second diagonal. If you have exactly 15 feet of reach, you still threaten that diagonal (and not the third diagonal)

Oh, well that's interesting. I did not realize that was the case.

Quote:
So don't use it.

The FAQ is raw for PFS at least.


D_GENNEXT, you are in the minority. Over 89% of those polled have been using the 3.5 Reach Weapon exception despite it not being included in Pathfinder until this re-introduction.

It solves more problems than it creates. Feel free to read the various threads as to what those problems are but in short, this prevents situations where people cannot defend against the diagonal approach or where people cannot attack someone simply because they are either 5' or 15' away with no middle ground.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Quote:
So don't use it.
The FAQ is raw for PFS at least.

This isn't the PFS forum, where I would not have said it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

Very happy about the reach weapon adjustment. Much easier to run.

Question. What about reach longer than 10 ft.? My current PFS character is an aberrant bloodrager wielding a bardiche. 15 foot reach is standard, 20 foot with the wand of *long arm* ...

While it is possible to go beyond 20' reach it becomes more of a corner case than the standard 10' reach weapon issue.

Hee.


I was wondering if anyone would notice that. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like your angle.


This thread is now for squares.


Diagonals once again highlight the benefit of hexes...

Seriously though? Our group always played it like that (granted there was more than one heated discussion about it that I managed to convince our GM to see my way).

Because really? The devs were basically saying you can't attack diagonally...at all (can't attack adjacent...can't attack the 2nd diagonal). So dumb.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, come on, that's really reaching.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

So happy for the reach FAQ.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Oh, come on, that's really reaching.

I was out of adjacent jokes.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Then again, if you just chuck squares out the window & use gridless maps, miniatures with correct-sized bases and rulers, none of this would matter, as there would be no diagonals in anyone's face.
Go Dwarven Forge!


I'm curious about what the range increments are like in Dwarven Forge. As fun as that system sounds I would kind of dread running into the inevitable situation where a character has a one inch attack range and they can't make it because the ruler says they're off by a centimetre.


Wheldrake, its funny you bring up going gridless, we were just discussing that.

Short version: it works great for those people able to easily visualize distances and not so well for those who are not as able to visualize distances (despite using rulers).

Liberty's Edge

Happy holidays to the PDT, Paizo people and the forum goers.

Gauss wrote:

Wheldrake, its funny you bring up going gridless, we were just discussing that.

Short version: it works great for those people able to easily visualize distances and not so well for those who are not as able to visualize distances (despite using rulers).

And a bit annoying for those guys using cm and meters. Plumbers tapers aren't less wieldy that other tapers.

Liberty's Edge

So, for clarification, this also affects large creatures with a natural reach of 10' (asking because the original exception only applied to small and medium creatures with reach weapons).

Liberty's Edge

Gauss wrote:

Yes, Enlarge Person + Reach Weapon + Lunge.

I did not say it wouldn't come up. However, the reach weapon exception sets a precedent that should allow such a person to hit the 4th diagonal.

No, it should not. The exception only applies to the second diagonal in order for all approaches to that character to be covered. If you're able to hit the second diagonal and beyond, then you're covered all the way around. If you can't hit a 30' reach to get the fourth diagonal, then too bad.


TOZ wrote:
Undone wrote:
Quote:
So don't use it.
The FAQ is raw for PFS at least.
This isn't the PFS forum, where I would not have said it.

I'm sorry. I did not realize that us PFS-ers weren't allowed to comment on a ruling that is going to affect how a table runs for us when it comes to melee combat with reach. Consider my comment retracted (EXTREME SARCASM.

As for the 89% polled comment:
That's fine. I was never asked to participate in a poll on this subject and we all know from the hard lessons of politics that polls are unreliable as the data can be skewed either in the collection or in the interpretation, so you'll excuse me if I question the validity of the "vocal majority" on this one.


Gauss wrote:

D_GENNEXT, you are in the minority. Over 89% of those polled have been using the 3.5 Reach Weapon exception despite it not being included in Pathfinder until this re-introduction.

It solves more problems than it creates. Feel free to read the various threads as to what those problems are but in short, this prevents situations where people cannot defend against the diagonal approach or where people cannot attack someone simply because they are either 5' or 15' away with no middle ground.

Let me further state that it only solves a lot of issues for the people too lazy to take a 5 foot step and THEN attack. I mean it's fascinating that melee attacks with reach have the ability to fold time and space in order to shorten distances by 5 feet, but it doesn't make it any less of a bad call.


There are a lot of situations in which you cannot 5 foot (terrain, walls, stepup) in that case it helps.


Wow folding both space and time. My characters with reach weapons are more impressive than I thought.

But less sarcastic I really don't see the offense here. 10 feet definitely reaches past the first diagonal and definitely does not reach all of the second. This is a generous interpretation of reach not a completely unreasoned one and it does fix the problem of there being an effective blind spot at every angle where an individual with a reach weapon can't threaten because their opponent is always either too close or too far when on an angle.

Sovereign Court

D_GENNEXT wrote:
Gauss wrote:

D_GENNEXT, you are in the minority. Over 89% of those polled have been using the 3.5 Reach Weapon exception despite it not being included in Pathfinder until this re-introduction.

It solves more problems than it creates. Feel free to read the various threads as to what those problems are but in short, this prevents situations where people cannot defend against the diagonal approach or where people cannot attack someone simply because they are either 5' or 15' away with no middle ground.

Let me further state that it only solves a lot of issues for the people too lazy to take a 5 foot step and THEN attack. I mean it's fascinating that melee attacks with reach have the ability to fold time and space in order to shorten distances by 5 feet, but it doesn't make it any less of a bad call.

No, it solves a real problem.

Imagine your character is in a corridor that's been drawn on a 45 degree angle on the grid, and you have a longspear. Your enemy is two squares away. Under the old rules, he was too far away to hit, but if you took a 5ft step closer, he'd be too close by.


A 10' reach weapon clearly reaches into the 2nd diagonal. The fact that it can't hit the far end of the 2nd diagonal is moot...no "folding of space and time" required.

On the other hand, SKR's square that was (yet wasn't) threatened introduced a (unique) exception to the AoO rules, and did so chasing a level of accuracy which, followed to its logical conclusion, would have rendered the use of a grid completely impractical.

This was the right call. It's simple, playable, and an appropriate level of abstraction to match the rest of the tactical combat engine.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
D_GENNEXT wrote:
I'm sorry. I did not realize that us PFS-ers weren't allowed to comment on a ruling that is going to affect how a table runs for us when it comes to melee combat with reach. Consider my comment retracted (EXTREME SARCASM.

Point to where I said you could not comment. I dare you.

Being able to comment means other people can comment too.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
A 10' reach weapon clearly reaches into the 2nd diagonal. The fact that it can't hit the far end of the 2nd diagonal is moot...no "folding of space and time" required.

I think you're responding to Ascalaphus. Just a point of order, per the measurement rules, if you don't have enough distance to reach all points of the square, then you don't get to count any of the square. Hence the reason for this exception.


Ascalaphus wrote:
D_GENNEXT wrote:
Gauss wrote:

D_GENNEXT, you are in the minority. Over 89% of those polled have been using the 3.5 Reach Weapon exception despite it not being included in Pathfinder until this re-introduction.

It solves more problems than it creates. Feel free to read the various threads as to what those problems are but in short, this prevents situations where people cannot defend against the diagonal approach or where people cannot attack someone simply because they are either 5' or 15' away with no middle ground.

Let me further state that it only solves a lot of issues for the people too lazy to take a 5 foot step and THEN attack. I mean it's fascinating that melee attacks with reach have the ability to fold time and space in order to shorten distances by 5 feet, but it doesn't make it any less of a bad call.

No, it solves a real problem.

Imagine your character is in a corridor that's been drawn on a 45 degree angle on the grid, and you have a longspear. Your enemy is two squares away. Under the old rules, he was too far away to hit, but if you took a 5ft step closer, he'd be too close by.

Yes, because terrain is NEVER an issue. Most people would just carry a backup weapon rather than whine until the publisher changes a rule.

It's a bad call and it panders to people that just want to squeeze that extra, unjustified inch out or the rules.


HangarFlying wrote:
I think you're responding to Ascalaphus. Just a point of order, per the measurement rules, if you don't have enough distance to reach all points of the square, then you don't get to count any of the square. Hence the reason for this exception.

If that is so, then it is the measurement rules which need to be changed.

The "2nd diagonal isn't threatened" ruling allows one to approach on the diagonal without provoking...which truly would require the bending of space-time.

On the other hand, SKR's ruling required that an move made in an un-threatened square provoked an attack of opportunity. Not only is this "semi-threatended" state unprecendented, it leads to complete absurdity when carried to its logical conclusion.

I repeat: This was the right call.


D_GENNEXT wrote:

Yes, because terrain is NEVER an issue. Most people would just carry a backup weapon rather than whine until the publisher changes a rule.

It's a bad call and it panders to people that just want to squeeze that extra, unjustified inch out or the rules.

So people who disagree with you are "whining until the publisher changes a rule?" And a ruling you don't like is "pandering?" And are we to pass unquestioned your implication that because terrain is sometimes reasonably an issue, it therefore follows that any issue imposed by terrain is reasonable?

Better, yet, how about we continue this discussion if and when you choose to express your point-of-view logically, and without the snark and personal attacks?

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:

If that is so, then it is the measurement rules which need to be changed.

The "2nd diagonal isn't threatened" ruling allows one to approach on the diagonal without provoking...which truly would require the bending of space-time.

On the other hand, SKR's ruling required that an move made in an un-threatened square provoked an attack of opportunity. Not only is this "semi-threatended" state unprecendented, it leads to complete absurdity when carried to its logical conclusion.

I repeat: This was the right call.

Don't forget, the measurement rules cover other things than just reach weapons: movement, ranged weapons, spell effect areas, etc.

But I do agree, it is the right call.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Mark Seifter wrote:
@Undone: The FAQ doesn't change anything about reaches greater than 10 feet. All it does is let someone with exactly 10 feet of reach threaten that second diagonal. If you have exactly 15 feet of reach, you still threaten that diagonal (and not the third diagonal)

Mark and others of the Pathfinder Design Team,

does the language of threaten from the FAQ imply that you can attack into that square while using an attack action, rather than an Attack of Opportunity?

I ask, because it truly does not seem obvious to me, based on the wording. Without repeating what I've already quoted in the PFS forum, I've linked the post(s) where I try to puzzle out the rules, and the potential difference between squares you threaten and squares you can attack into.

With the rules as written in Pathfinder under melee attacks and attacks of opportunity, it seems like there is a distinction between what you threaten (i.e., can take attacks of opportunity against), and what you can hit in melee (i.e., take an attack action against). This was, for sure, the case in 3.5, with the so-called "Ogre Exception".

Is this the case in Pathfinder after this ruling?

Thank you!


HangarFlying wrote:
Don't forget, the measurement rules cover other things than just reach weapons: movement, ranged weapons, spell effect areas, etc.

Yes, that's true. Using a grid inherently involves trade-offs, and I personally believe that this method of handling reach represents the best mix of trade-offs available.

I still want to try the "measuring tape" method someday, but that's another story...


D_GENNEXT,

There are two specific situations this rule covers.

1) It prevents creatures from running up to a reach weapon wielder without suffering an attack of opportunity.
Without this rule the reach weapon user does not threaten either the 1st or 2nd diagonal so there cannot be an AoO if someone walks up to him on one of the diagonals.

2) There are some maps that have corridors drawn on a 45degree angle. Because of that there is NO place for a reach weapon user to attack.
No amount of 5' stepping fixes this because, according to the rules, you are either 5' or 15' away.

So, which is better.
A) Telling someone that, despite common sense, they cannot make an AoO against someone coming in from 4 of 8 directions 'just because rules' and that they cannot attack someone 'just because rules'.

OR

B) Re-instituting an exception that >89% of people use anyhow.

Sometimes the rules are flawed. This was a flaw that snuck in when the Paizo Devs failed (forgot?) to bring the reach weapon exception forward from 3.5. Or perhaps you forgot that this rule was already part of the 3.X game system of which Pathfinder is a successor?

My Poll, while informative, probably has had no bearing on the Devs. I would like to think it did but, it probably didn't.

On a personal note, you may wish to be more polite if you would like people to maintain a polite tone with you.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Don't forget, the measurement rules cover other things than just reach weapons: movement, ranged weapons, spell effect areas, etc.

Yes, that's true. Using a grid inherently involves trade-offs, and I personally believe that this method of handling reach represents the best mix of trade-offs available.

I still want to try the "measuring tape" method someday, but that's another story...

Yeah, I've got a war gaming background. I think the measuring tape method would be super fun!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hooray! I can risk adventuring down that diagonal corridor with my longspear at last!

I've been waiting at this dungeon entrance for years, waiting to get this rule re-instated! : )

Contributor

10 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

A 10' reach weapon clearly reaches into the 2nd diagonal. The fact that it can't hit the far end of the 2nd diagonal is moot...no "folding of space and time" required.

On the other hand, SKR's square that was (yet wasn't) threatened introduced a (unique) exception to the AoO rules

It wasn't my square, or my ruling. It's how Jason thought it should work, in the text that he wrote for the Core Rulebook. When this question came up in the FAQ queue, I pointed out the problem to Jason (heck, it was a diagram on the marker board on my office wall for months), he acknowledged it wasn't clear over two years ago, but nothing got done about it until now.

Please stop attributing to me every ruling or answer you (generic "you") don't like. (Which, mind you, is one of the reasons why I stopped being the point man for FAQs for about five months. And during that interregnum, there were only a handful of new FAQs posted, because nobody else made FAQs a priority like I did. And then I was ordered to be the point man for FAQs again, despite me not wanting to, and despite being told "you get into too many arguments on the boards.")


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

A 10' reach weapon clearly reaches into the 2nd diagonal. The fact that it can't hit the far end of the 2nd diagonal is moot...no "folding of space and time" required.

On the other hand, SKR's square that was (yet wasn't) threatened introduced a (unique) exception to the AoO rules

It wasn't my square, or my ruling. It's how Jason thought it should work, in the text that he wrote for the Core Rulebook. When this question came up in the FAQ queue, I pointed out the problem to Jason (heck, it was a diagram on the marker board on my office wall for months), he acknowledged it wasn't clear over two years ago, but nothing got done about it until now.

Please stop attributing to me every ruling or answer you (generic "you") don't like. (Which, mind you, is one of the reasons why I stopped being the point man for FAQs for about five months. And during that interregnum, there were only a handful of new FAQs posted, because nobody else made FAQs a priority like I did. And then I was ordered to be the point man for FAQs again, despite me not wanting to, and despite being told "you get into too many arguments on the boards.")

Confirmed: SKR source of all rulings you don't like.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

A 10' reach weapon clearly reaches into the 2nd diagonal. The fact that it can't hit the far end of the 2nd diagonal is moot...no "folding of space and time" required.

On the other hand, SKR's square that was (yet wasn't) threatened introduced a (unique) exception to the AoO rules

It wasn't my square, or my ruling. It's how Jason thought it should work, in the text that he wrote for the Core Rulebook. When this question came up in the FAQ queue, I pointed out the problem to Jason (heck, it was a diagram on the marker board on my office wall for months), he acknowledged it wasn't clear over two years ago, but nothing got done about it until now.

Please stop attributing to me every ruling or answer you (generic "you") don't like. (Which, mind you, is one of the reasons why I stopped being the point man for FAQs for about five months. And during that interregnum, there were only a handful of new FAQs posted, because nobody else made FAQs a priority like I did. And then I was ordered to be the point man for FAQs again, despite me not wanting to, and despite being told "you get into too many arguments on the boards.")

Confirmed: SKR source of all rulings you don't like.

If it's not Cosmo, it's SKR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

A 10' reach weapon clearly reaches into the 2nd diagonal. The fact that it can't hit the far end of the 2nd diagonal is moot...no "folding of space and time" required.

On the other hand, SKR's square that was (yet wasn't) threatened introduced a (unique) exception to the AoO rules

It wasn't my square, or my ruling. It's how Jason thought it should work, in the text that he wrote for the Core Rulebook. When this question came up in the FAQ queue, I pointed out the problem to Jason (heck, it was a diagram on the marker board on my office wall for months), he acknowledged it wasn't clear over two years ago, but nothing got done about it until now.

Please stop attributing to me every ruling or answer you (generic "you") don't like. (Which, mind you, is one of the reasons why I stopped being the point man for FAQs for about five months. And during that interregnum, there were only a handful of new FAQs posted, because nobody else made FAQs a priority like I did. And then I was ordered to be the point man for FAQs again, despite me not wanting to, and despite being told "you get into too many arguments on the boards.")

Confirmed: SKR source of all rulings you don't like.

I KNEW he snuck into paizo in the dead of night to make that Sleeves of Many Garments FAQ.

Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I can confirm that the diagram Sean described was still up on the whiteboard when I got there. I saw it and wondered "Does this mean we're considering FAQing that soon?" and everyone was like "Oh, Sean has had that up there since forever."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It wasn't my square, or my ruling. It's how Jason thought it should work, in the text that he wrote for the Core Rulebook. When this question came up in the FAQ queue, I pointed out the problem to Jason (heck, it was a diagram on the marker board on my office wall for months), he acknowledged it wasn't clear over two years ago, but nothing got done about it until now.

Please stop attributing to me every ruling or answer you (generic "you") don't like. (Which, mind you, is one of the reasons why I stopped being the point man for FAQs for about five months. And during that interregnum, there were only a handful of new FAQs posted, because nobody else made FAQs a priority like I did. And then I was ordered to be the point man for FAQs again, despite me not wanting to, and despite being told "you get into too many arguments on the boards.")

I stand corrected, and I apologize for misrepresenting your position. I will be more careful in the future.

Contributor

5 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It wasn't my square, or my ruling. It's how Jason thought it should work, in the text that he wrote for the Core Rulebook. When this question came up in the FAQ queue, I pointed out the problem to Jason (heck, it was a diagram on the marker board on my office wall for months), he acknowledged it wasn't clear over two years ago, but nothing got done about it until now.

Please stop attributing to me every ruling or answer you (generic "you") don't like. (Which, mind you, is one of the reasons why I stopped being the point man for FAQs for about five months. And during that interregnum, there were only a handful of new FAQs posted, because nobody else made FAQs a priority like I did. And then I was ordered to be the point man for FAQs again, despite me not wanting to, and despite being told "you get into too many arguments on the boards.")

I stand corrected, and I apologize for misrepresenting your position. I will be more careful in the future.

In my opinion, a large part of the problem is that there are "positions" at all. There is are fine lines between "debate," "discussion," and "arguing," and all arguing ever does on the Paizo boards or any other is get a community's privileges taken away. It happened not too long ago with the infamous "Paizo Needs to Clean Up Its House," thread and now we have strong evidence that similar behavior in regards to Pre-Seifter FAQs likely caused FAQ Friday to dry up altogether until recently.

So please, even if you don't like a designer / developer or his stance on something, don't spread your negativity about how awful it is. Fine some solid, empirical proof and present it if you want to, but don't go attacking the people who spend their off-time working to try and make your gaming experience even greater.


Alexander Augunas wrote:


So please, even if you don't like a designer / developer or his stance on something, don't spread your negativity about how awful it is. Fine some solid, empirical proof and present it if you want to, but don't go attacking the people who spend their off-time working to try and make your gaming experience even greater.

I'll agree that you shouldn't go after a person, but I don't see it as "negativity" to attack someone's stance. That's how debating works. Often these debates are over grey areas, so there is no "solid, empirical proof" on either side. Disagreeing on a point of view isn't hostile unless one side makes it so. Mark, for example, has done a fine job of engaging the community and explaining thing clearly and rationally even on subjects where there is disagreements. This wasn't always the case with some other dev's...

Silver Crusade

At the time, I thought SKR really wanted to have the 3.5 exception, wasn't allowed to, and was sincerely trying his best to do what he could.

It was ascribed to him, simply because it was his post that revealed it to us.

He was sympathetic to the problem of attacking in diagonal corridors (it being totally impossible with a reach weapon, against all reason), I simply believed he was forbidden from re-instating the 3.5 exception even though he wanted to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

At the time, I thought SKR really wanted to have the 3.5 exception, wasn't allowed to, and was sincerely trying his best to do what he could.

It was ascribed to him, simply because it was his post that revealed it to us.

He was sympathetic to the problem of attacking in diagonal corridors (it being totally impossible with a reach weapon, against all reason), I simply believed he was forbidden from re-instating the 3.5 exception even though he wanted to.

As a reminder SKR as a dev was never allowed to make any rules changes on his own. He was a dev but not the lead dev. At best he could make a case but the final call is never his.

And no I am not say "well blame Jason...."

I would say that many of you need to realize that you tables way of playing is not the only valid way so a rule going against your style of play does not entitle you to throw temper tantrums like toddlers.

PS: This is not directed at Malachi. ←In before someone assumes I am personally attacking someone else.

Silver Crusade

: )

I didn't take it that way, Wraithstrike.

It's never wise to make it personal, with the devs or anyone else. It should be about the merits of the case, not the person.

It's an easy insult to sling, that anyone debating a ruling is a 'crybaby', 'butthurt', or whatever. Being passionate about your case is okay, and deconstructing the opposing argument is not only okay, but expected, but translating that into personal comments tends to show that your argument isn't strong enough to stand on its own.

I've had my disagreements with various rulings, and haven't been shy about saying so. But I've also acknowledged ones I thought were great, and' threatening the diagonal' is one of the great ones.


The diagonal update is quite annoying for folks standing on the second diagonal and moving somewhere else outside 10', such as away or orthogonally. Sorry, folks, but I' gonna have to ignore this one, too, and continue to rule that it only provokes if the movement actually involves crossing the 10' barrier. It made perfect sense that way and I've yet to see it cause confusion in practice.

But have a good holiday nonetheless, and thanks for the FAQ attention!

51 to 100 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Happy Holidays from the Pathfinder Design Team! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.