| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is there some rule that I have missed somewhere that states what the Pathfinder definition of "adjacent" is? There are several teamwork feats that require that something be "adjacent" to you. Now, normally that means in the square next to you. However, many of the feats are clearly meant to be used while mounted. When you are mounted you are actually sharing a square, not next to them.
Now, I am well aware that one of the definitions of "adjacent" means "adjoining". But as we all know using the dictionary definition of words for rulings in Pathfinder gets into sticky grounds. I am simply asking this to avoid confusion at a table and make sure we are all on the same page. I could easily see someone making the argument of, "Being in the same square is not the same thing as 'adjacent'."
...I would not be the one making that argument. I would be the one trying to clear it up before it gets made. ;)
When you're mounted you're considered to be taking up the same squares as your mount.
Hopefully that's what you were looking
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. That really doesn't help. I know that you are taking up the same squares as your mount. I posted that in my first post. I am looking for a place in Pathfinder that defines that "adjacent" can mean "part of same square".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder has adjacent rules.
Rules text: Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eeeyap. Wraith found the buried quote.
So as close as 0 feet and as far as 5 feet.
It would seem to depend on the context.
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).
Emphasis added.
Your own square is certainly within 5' of you, so by this definition it would seem to count as adjacent.
Drop an Item
Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action.Emphasis added.
Here they seem to distinguish between your square and the adjacent squares.
Edit: Partially ninja'd
Wraithstrike: Wow. That is buried. Thank you for finding it.
Gisher: Hm... I knew something like this would come up.
So... do we need a FAQ on this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike: Wow. That is buried. Thank you for finding it.
Gisher: Hm... I knew something like this would come up.
So... do we need a FAQ on this?
I'm not sure we have need of an FAQ here. Why is this coming up? Is there a wording somewhere that is trying to be twisted into something that would not make sense to create a loophole? Please clarify the situation as it is presenting.
Seppuku: Not yet that I know of but I could easily see it be. There is no current situation that I know of. Just above Gisher posted a quote where it shows that "adjacent" is NOT in the same square.
Seppuku: Not yet that I know of but I could easily see it be. There is no current situation that I know of. Just above Gisher posted a quote where it shows that "adjacent" is NOT in the same square.
Adjacent is not ALWAYS in the same square, but it can be. The two quotes don't contradict, merely complement (the one on dropped items being written with clearer language).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the definition of "adjacent" is like the definition of "ally"?
Ally: Do you count as your own ally?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."
In that spirit, I offer
A square counts as adjacent to itself unless otherwise indicated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your adjacent squares" almost always means the same as "your square and its adjacent squares."
Mounted teamwork feats: you count as adjacent to your mount by the default clause. Check.
Splash weapons: the target square is specifically called out as being affected differently than its adjacent squares; this constitutes indicating that it is not one of them, so it isn't. Check.
Blazing Aura, Djinni Spin and such: counting yours as one of the adjacent squares that you're blasting would be nonsensical, hence it doesn't count. Check.
Tiny creatures attacking into their own square: disallowing this would be nonsensical, hence it isn't disallowed, hence their own square does not count as adjacent and everything works. Check.
Etc, etc. Resorting to this kind of conditional definition is unfortunate, but since they did it for "ally"... why not?
Fuzzy-Wuzzy: I think that is a good ruling to make. It makes logical sense to me. ...if only it was official.
Seppuku: Not yet that I know of but I could easily see it be. There is no current situation that I know of. Just above Gisher posted a quote where it shows that "adjacent" is NOT in the same square.Adjacent is not ALWAYS in the same square, but it can be. The two quotes don't contradict, merely complement (the one on dropped items being written with clearer language).
I agree with this interpretation. For me the phrase 'adjacent square' would normally include your own square in much the same way the term 'ally' generally includes yourself.
Yep, a lot of cases are fairly clear. It still requires a GM judgment call, however.... and you're always going to get that one GM who reads it differently.
It involves no more of a judgment call than the devs' definition of "ally" does. You'll get that one GM on any rule, whatever the topic, clear-cut or not.
There are also some instances where it's not clear what's supposed to happen or what is allowed. I would say the Step Up and Improved Ki Throw are two good examples of this. How would you adjudicate those two?
Keep in mind that some creatures can share squares, particularly unusually small or large ones. While I'm sure we can come up with a "reasonable" ruling here, there is undoubtedly the potential for significant table variation.
Okay, let's check the wording.
Step Up (Combat)
You can close the distance when a foe tries to move away.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your next turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement.
This one seems straightforward to me. "Adjacent" appears twice. In each case we try the proposed rule
A square counts as adjacent to itself unless otherwise indicated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your adjacent squares" almost always means the same as "your square and its adjacent squares."
In either case, is it indicated that a square is not adjacent to itself, for instance by calling out that square separately? No.
In either case, is counting a square as adjacent to itself nonsensical or impossible? No, it's perfectly doable.
Therefore in both cases a square counts as adjacent to itself, because the proposed rule makes that the default answer. So Tiny creatures can pursue each other from one shared square into another.
Improved Ki Throw (Combat)
Your enemies are living weapons in your hands.
Prerequisites: Improved Bull Rush, Ki Throw.
Benefit: When using the Ki Throw feat, you may throw your target into any square you threaten that is occupied by another creature. Make a bull rush combat maneuver check with a –4 penalty against the secondary target. If this check succeeds, the thrown creature lands prone in the secondary target's square, while the secondary target is pushed back and knocked prone in an adjacent square. If the check fails, the thrown creature lands prone in the nearest square you threaten adjacent to the secondary target.
If you throw a Large or larger creature into an area containing multiple secondary targets, you take an additional penalty of –4 on your combat maneuver check for each target after the first.
Special: A monk may take this as a bonus feat at 14th level.
The secondary target's square is specifically called out separately from the adjacent squares. That triggers the "unless otherwise indicated" clause of the proposed rule, so the secondary target's square is not adjacent to itself. The thrown creature and the secondary target end up in different squares whether the check succeeds or fails.
I don't really see any ambiguity in those two cases under this rule, regardless of the size and square-sharing capabilities of the creatures involved.
For Step Up:
A small creature is sharing the middle square of a huge foe. The huge creature takes a 5' step. Can the small creature now take a 5' step in any direction?
Or alternatively, the small creature 5' steps out of the edge of a huge creature's squares. Can the huge creature now Step Up to again share the small creature's square?
Could you please rephrase these in a way that hinges on the question of whether a square is adjacent to itself? AFAICT these don't even involve that question at all. I'm not interested in debating whether Step Up is poorly worded otherwise, that's OT.
For Improved Ki Throw:
"When using the Ki Throw feat, you may throw your target into any square you threaten that is occupied by another creature. ... If the check fails, the thrown creature lands prone in the nearest square you threaten adjacent to the secondary target."
You skipped too much of the feat description there.
When using the Ki Throw feat, you may throw your target into any square you threaten that is occupied by another creature. Make a bull rush check.... If this check succeeds, the thrown creature lands prone in the secondary target's square, while the secondary target is pushed back and knocked prone in an adjacent square. If the check fails, the thrown creature lands prone in the nearest square you threaten adjacent to the secondary target.
The proposed rule says a square is adjacent to itself "unless otherwise indicated [or...]." The bolded bits clearly call out the secondary target's square as different from those adjacent to it; the thrown creature lands in one as opposed to the other. So Improved Ki Throw "indicates otherwise," so it does not count squares as adjacent to themselves.
So, I throw the creature into a square occupied by another creature. I fail my check. Can I choose to land the creature in the secondary target's square if it is the nearest square I threaten? I don't see where it specifies this square must be different than the secondary's.
It doesn't specify but it does indicate by its call-outs. The whole point of having a "when is a square adjacent to itself" rule is to handle the cases where such things are not explicitly specified.
Again, these were just some quick examples. I'm sure even odder cases can be found with a bit of searching.
Sure. Please check that they (a) hinge on the question of whether a square is adjacent to itself and (b) are not resolved by straightforwardly applying the proposed rule: A square counts as adjacent to itself unless otherwise indicated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your adjacent squares" almost always means the same as "your square and its adjacent squares."
Byakko is showing a few examples of where I would expect to find differing opinions. I know there are more.
Mostly I am concerned about a GM saying that a character couldn't use the Teamwork feats while mounted as you are sharing a square and not in an "adjacent" square.
Lune, as the OP, are you still looking for an actual this-is-what-Pathfinder-uses definition of "adjacent"? Or are you looking for rules that could work? Or are you venting?
A little bit venting. Mostly I am looking for a ruling though. I know I wont get that short of a Dev stepping in, though. It likely wont appear in a FAQ either as people do not think it is important enough to include in one.
I think it is just one of those frustrating rules that people have different opinions on how it is used and there is no way around it. These rules are especially frustrating in PFS where you can't just ask your GM how they rule on things before hand. And if you are playing something like a Hunter (like my son) then getting Teamwork Feats that rely on this kind of ruling are inevitable.
|
A little bit venting. Mostly I am looking for a ruling though. I know I wont get that short of a Dev stepping in, though. It likely wont appear in a FAQ either as people do not think it is important enough to include in one.
I think it is just one of those frustrating rules that people have different opinions on how it is used and there is no way around it. These rules are especially frustrating in PFS where you can't just ask your GM how they rule on things before hand. And if you are playing something like a Hunter (like my son) then getting Teamwork Feats that rely on this kind of ruling are inevitable.
Exactly what do you still have a problem with?
I do not have a problem with anything.
I do not know of any problem that yet exists.
As originally stated, this is in regards to certain PFS GMs that I play with that I am anticipating potentially running into issues with how they choose to define "adjacent" as there seems to be nothing official on this.
|
|
Just wanted to say that I'm totally on board with Fuzzy-Wuzzy's proposed interpretation.
@ Lune
I take it that your son is playing a small race with a medium companion? With medium PCs and large mounts, there should be no problem. Since a rider counts as being in all of his mounts squares, yet clearly is only one square in size, any square of his mount is implicitly adjacent to another square occupied by his mount.
Also, it doesn't get more adjacent than a mount and rider..... I mean, come on, really?
On a similar but not completely related topic, what's up with 3D combat? Just because my enemy (who is 25 feet away) is 15 feet in the air, I can't use Point Blank Shot (according to one PFS GM), but Pythagoras would totally disagree. The reason that this is relevant is that a flying PC (or a swimming PC) could be above/below another one, occupying the same "square", but not the same "cube", and obviously not sharing a space. They could be adjacent, right? Would the same then not apply to a mount and rider?
Specifically to your example, someone 15 feet in the air would not be adjacent to someone on the ground (at 0), they're 10 feet apart and definitely not adjacent. As to your GM not knowing basic math, I can't say much about that.
galahad2112: That is correct. Currently a Halfling on an Axebeak. It will become Large soon.
And yes, I have already had several "com on, really?" moments with this particular PFS GM.
claudekennilol: I think what he is referring to is that the average human is more than 5' tall which should put their arms into the 10' high cube. Thus making the 15' cube next to them adjacent. This, by the way, is how I and several of my friends that GM rule. I never understood measuring from one's feet.
|
|
galahad2112: That is correct. Currently a Halfling on an Axebeak. It will become Large soon.
And yes, I have already had several "com on, really?" moments with this particular PFS GM.
claudekennilol: I think what he is referring to is that the average human is more than 5' tall which should put their arms into the 10' high cube. Thus making the 15' cube next to them adjacent. This, by the way, is how I and several of my friends that GM rule. I never understood measuring from one's feet.
Medium creatures are assumed to take up their 5'x5'x5' cube. Even if he took up 5'x5'x10' he'd still be 5' away and not adjacent. What he meant to say was 5' in the air--then they'd be adjacent.
No, I think he meant to say what he said.
So you are telling me that someone who is 7' tall doesn't extend into the next 5' cube beyond the one at floor level? Especially for beings whose arms are near the top of their bodies. Sorry, I don't buy that. I think that would be accurate for small sized critters like halflings but not for humans.
Luckily there is no RAW on this so we are both free to rule as we wish. Unluckily different DMs rule differently so you cannot expect a constant in PFS which I believe was galahad2112's point.
|
The big and small creatures table unfortunately doesn't explicitly specify whether it includes vertical space.
In play, adjacent squares are the squares a medium creature with normal reach can reach into with a non-reach weapon. Reaching 15ft in the air without jumping would be quite a stretch for a human. See this discussion and note that the 3.5 rules indicated that the maximum vertical reach for a medium creature was 8ft - meaning that striking with a sword at something up to 10ft up (vertically adjacent to your 5x5x5 cube) should be doable but striking at something 15ft up would take a reach weapon or a vertical jump.
The 5x5x5 cube is a bit of a simplification but it makes more sense than saying that you occupy a space 10ft high when you can't reach to the top of that space. (Note that it's easy to shift 2ft or so in one direction or the other within your space on the ground so it makes sense to occupy a bit more space than your arms can strictly reach there).
On a similar but not completely related topic, what's up with 3D combat? Just because my enemy (who is 25 feet away) is 15 feet in the air, I can't use Point Blank Shot (according to one PFS GM), but Pythagoras would totally disagree.
Did you expect him/her to pull out a calculator and check in the middle of combat? Knowing the pythagorean theorum does not translate to an intuitive understanding of exactly how long a given hypothenuse is, and this one is really close (29.15ft). I can absolutely understand a GM eyeballing that and guessing that the hypotenuse would be 30ft or longer.
claudekennilol: Nothing in that section addresses the Z axis.
|
I think the only way the RAW will address things is having adjacent being applied to combat squares or hexes. Those will be the most common instances 99% of the time. The rules start to become overly cumbersome when there are rewrites for the 1% situations. The easiest way to see it is if they are in the square next to you, they are adjacent, and that would cover x,y, and z. Those situations that fall outside this, like a tiny foe in the same square, can use a common sense ruling by the GM, with adjacent being next to, that it is adjacent to the player. These are situations that come up so rarely that I wouldn't see them doing an official errata or FAQ on it, but you never know.
Weirdo: That thread does not establish RAW and there is a lot of disagreement on both sides about how to properly rule for which vertical squares a creature takes up. Roy reaches higher than Belkar does. Or do you disagree?
As for the bit about a calculator: well, yeah. I would expect that. Any GM worth his salt keeps a calculator handy. And anyone gaming long enough should know the applications of the pythagorean theorum. But then I may have a higher expectation of the intelligence of people, particularly gamers, particularly GMs. These are people who are typically above average intelligence from my experience. Of course, YMMV.
Shar Tahl: That doesn't really help here. I think the largest number of situations this comes up is with Teamwork Feats. Many of those seem to be designed for mounted combat. When you are mounted you share a square with your mount. Common sense, I think, can apply to either ruling. I side on shared squares as counting towards "adjacent" but I can see room for disagreement without a ruling.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The simplest way to do this is to recognize the distinction between adjacent creatures and adjacent squares.
i. Nothing can be adjacent to itself.
ii. Creatures within 5' are adjacent (pursuant to rule i).
iii. Squares within 5' are adjacent (pursuant to rule i).
That resolves everything. Your familiar, sharing your square, is adjacent to you, even though you two are not in adjacent squares. Two tiny creatures in the same square are adjacent to one another, but are not in adjacent squares. If one of them five-foot-steps out, they are still adjacent, and are now also in adjacent squares. You are always adjacent to your mount, but you are never in separate squares. Et cetera.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that this is only for the "if the check succeeds" condition, not for the failed condition. None of the text of the first sentence logically applies to the second.
Are you serious? The first sentence does not apply "logically" to the sentence under strict Aristotelian logic, but it certainly applies under the normal logic of English. People do not typically use a word twice in two sentences with contradictory meanings, because context is a good thing.
To put that another way, the problem with "adjacent" is that it is used in different ways by different writers and in different contexts. I can't think of any case where there is reason to believe its meaning shifts within a single context. This is part of why I used "unless indicated otherwise" and not "unless stated otherwise." If we try going only by what is explicitly stated we *know* it won't work in general, there have been plenty of examples of that.
Perhaps I should amend the proposal to make this clearer? A square counts as adjacent to itself within a given context unless otherwise indicated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. The devs didn't find that clause necessary when clarifying that you are generally your own ally, but maybe adjacency needs it?
|
adjacent squares are the 4 squares that are boardering the square that you are in if you are a medium sized creature. The same goes if you are using a hex map then it would be the six squares that boarder the hex that you are in. adjacent squares if you are mounted are the squares that are boardering the 5x10 space your mount takes up.
Anyway, I'm not here to argue the intricacies of English language semantics.
Agreed.
There's also the possibility of requiring two different interpretations of the word adjacent within the same context in order to achieve the desired result.
Disagreed. I mean, sure, it's not physically impossible, but few people write that poorly.
The lack of clarity on the "you are your own ally" FAQ has caused a plethora of threads concerning corner cases, so it's really not a shining example of a perfect FAQ.
Whoops. Well, now I've poked around the plethora, and it looks like the cases were generally either resolved agreeably or were about teamwork feats. (Admittedly my search-fu is not the best.) Apparently teamwork feats need calling out.
|
|
Weirdo: That thread does not establish RAW and there is a lot of disagreement on both sides about how to properly rule for which vertical squares a creature takes up. Roy reaches higher than Belkar does. Or do you disagree?
Give them a longspear and they both reach into the square 10ft away. If having them both get the same vertical reach - occupying the same 5x5x5 cube - is immersion breaking for you, you probably should homebrew some rules for horizontal reach as well.
Since it's all multiples of 5, and you know that your target number for the square of the hypotenuse is 900, it should be pretty easy. Simple answer is 30 ft. away + any vertical is no good, 25 feet away gives you 15, 20 gets you 20. That is all, as any other combination is either the reverse of these numbers, or outright disallowed due to being outside of 30 feet in one aspect already.
That's pretty handy. I guess it hasn't come up at my table often enough to have it worked out ahead of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weirdo: I do not have to homebrew anything to have a differing opinion on verticle reach as there is no RAW on this. It is the same for your perspective as well.
Anyway...
As for examples of "adjacent" possibly meaning two different things in the same context I would refer you to the Mouser Swashbucker's Underfoot Assault ability.
Want to make that more complicated? Combine with the Step Up line of feats, Sidestep line of feats and a Tiny sized character.
Now... define what is meant by "adjacent". As far as I can tell it differs or at least includes more than one meaning.
I really like Game Master's definition above. But again... if only it were official.
As for examples of "adjacent" possibly meaning two different things in the same context I would refer you to the Mouser Swashbucker's Underfoot Assault ability.
I don't see why you think it should have multiple different meanings there. Is it because the word appears more than once, or what? Obviously we could assign a different meaning to each appearance--true of any word in any piece of text, Pathfinder or otherwise--my assertion is that the writer didn't and therefore we don't have to.
Want to make that more complicated? Combine with the Step Up line of feats, Sidestep line of feats and a Tiny sized character.
Now you're pointing to several different contexts and asking to treat them as one. Please don't do that, it's not how context works.
Now... define what is meant by "adjacent".
I'm sticking with the definition I've been using. Can you show that it doesn't work within some single context?