| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have a question about this FAQ:
10-Foot Reach and Diagonals: I’m confused about reach and diagonals. I heard somewhere online that you don’t threaten the second diagonal with a 10-foot reach but that you somehow get an attack of opportunity when opponents move out of that square, but the Rules Reference Cards show that you do threaten the second diagonal. Which one is correct?
The cards are correct. As an exception to the way that diagonals normally work, a creature with 10 feet of reach threatens the second diagonal. These changes will be reflected in the next errata.
How does this work for large and larger creatures? Do they count diagonals normally? Is there a difference between natural reach and added reach from a reach weapon for big creatures?
I think this image illustrates what I mean.
Without a reach weapon, a large creature with 10 ft. reach threatens all adjacent squares and some one square away. If natural reach is counted as normal, it would be as alternative 1 shows. If it's treated as a reach weapon, it would be as alternative 2.
Alternative 1 makes sense, with even larger creatures it gets ridiculous if diagonals aren't counted normally. That square gets humongous. But if natural reach is different from weapon reach, then a medium creature with a reach weapon can stand in the corner 2 squares away from a larger creature and attack, without the large creature being able to strike back (without first moving). Despite the fact that both has 10 ft. reach!
With a reach weapon, you can with the same logic get either alternative 1 or alternative 2 - counting distances normally or as per the reach weapon errata.
My alternative 3 is sort of a compromise. Here, I've counted the second diagonal as only costing 5 ft. of reach as you do with medium creatures wielding reach weapons, but every other diagonal is counted normally. This is a bit complicated, but solves the problem of weapon reach being superior (in some respects) to natural reach without very large creatures striking over vast diagonal distances.
So, what is it?
I think you cover enough squares to cover the minimum reach of the monster, even if it means taking up an additional diagonal.
That makes alt 3 my first choice with alt 2 being my 2nd. This might be worth an FAQ.
PS: FAQ's only answer the specific question asked. In this case it was referring to small and medium creatures.
Your question would be about large and bigger creatures and most likely be its own FAQ unless they decide to add it to the current one.
You might want to bold those 3 question that you have on one line so the PDT is clear on what you asking. Then press the FAQ button.
There should be no difference between natural and weapon reach. Whichever you choose to use in the interim, keep them the same.
There should be no difference between natural and weapon reach. Whichever you choose to use in the interim, keep them the same.
Yeah. That makes sense.
However, rules as written disagrees as far as I can tell. There's no rule detailing how to measure reach and I assume this means it's measured exactly like movement and ranged attacks. But then there's this specific FAQ that changes this for medium and small creatures using reach weapons.
I've followed wraithstrikes advice and marked this as a FAQ candidate.
There should be no difference between natural and weapon reach.
You may feel that way, but there is.
Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature with greater than normal natural reach (more than 5 feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it.
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.
Not that aspect of reach - the range of reach as that was the aspect we were discussing.
*le sigh*