RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I think you're overthinking this.
The short and long of it is, treat movement coming in from the diagonals the same way you treat movement coming in from the sides, because the whole grid thing is an abstraction. You can rotate the grid 45 degrees in the middle of combat and it shouldn't affect anything.
A guy 15 ft. away on a diagonal can 5-foot step adjacent to you no problem, because a guy 10 ft. away from you on a straight line can 5-foot step adjacent to you no problem. The fact that the square 10 ft away from you on a diagonal doesn't exist shouldn't prevent him from doing so, any more than the fact that that square doesn't exist would prevent you from making an attack of opportunity against someone using a move action to pass through it.
Silverace99 brings up a good point. Awhile back a developer (SKR) stated that even without the 3.5 exception that allowed reach weapons to attack and threaten the second diagonal there was a 10' band they threatened and thus could make attacks of opportunity when people crossed from the 15' to 5' square.
So, based on that logic, a 5' step from the second diagonal to the first diagonal is actually traveling 10' and through that 10 foot band.
Does that provoke an AoO? Regretfully, no. Why? Because the developer statement is not in the rules and was his opinion. It is not a FAQ or Errata.
Should the developer opinion have weight? That is up to you. But, as he stated in that very thread, he does not make FAQs anymore.
The only official developer opinions are now from the Pathfinder Design Team.
Summary: No, the 'ruling' does not count as a FAQ or Errata and does not apply to the rules (unless, iirc, PFS rules since they follow Dev rulings). You may of course use it in your own game but frankly, I just use the 3.5 exception. It is much simpler.
- Gauss
Does this concept of not being able to magically teleport 10 feet also apply to a 5 ft step?
The concept is that it is hard to simulate 360 degree movement on a square grid. Hence they tried their best to make diagonal movement somewhat accurate with the 5'/10' every other diagonal rule. Logic (and game movement) will break if you assume absolutes on this.
The fact is a 5 foot step is a special free action that never causes an attack of opportunity. It also cannot be combined in the same round with any action spent for any other standard movement (flying, ground movement, burrowing and so forth).
There is no magical teleporting or not. It is simply a square grid and it does not represent all things perfectly. If your "15 feet" away on a diagonal and you 5' step on a diagonal as your sole movement of any kind in a round and that happens to make you leave any threatened square, whoever threatens you does not get an AoO.
Simple. Done.
It does not matter if your stepping away from, closer to or through a targets threatened square/s with a 5 foot step.
As with everything your free to rule 0 it.
Ahhh Gilfalas, but SKR opened the door when he stated there was a 10' band. That is what Silverace99 is basing his logic on. Frankly, while I agree with the logical premise he is operating under I don't like what it does to the rules. It violates the 5' step too much.
Then again to me the 3.5 exception is simple. After all, if you cover over half of the 15' square with your longspear why shouldn't you be able to threaten it? So, I don't have the problem in my games.
- Gauss
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I think you're overthinking this.
The short and long of it is, treat movement coming in from the diagonals the same way you treat movement coming in from the sides, because the whole grid thing is an abstraction. You can rotate the grid 45 degrees in the middle of combat and it shouldn't affect anything.
The problem is it does affect something.
Following your algorithm, let's compare two enemies 15 ft away from each other, 1) In diagonal position and 2) Coming in from the sides instead.
1) DIAGONAL
Dude is 15 ft away. he takes a 5 ft step, but somehow he's managed to move 10 feet and get within 5 feet of the reach weapon user.2) SIDE
Dude is 15 ft away. he takes a 5 ft step, which makes him 10 feet away and he doesn't have reach to attack. If he wants to attack, he has to move 10 feet rather than 5 foot step (And provoke an AOO)
But the only reason the guy is 15 ft away in the diagonal case is because whoever drew the map decided to orient the grid in that direction. If the map were 45 degrees off from that orientation, he'd be standing 10 feet away, and this wouldn't be a problem.
The cartographer's whim is not justification for negating the 5-foot step's ability to avoid AoO :D
Benchak, the cartographer's whim is not justification for negating a reach weapon by allowing people to approach from diagonals without ever being attacked.
- Gauss
Correction, it only provokes if you use one of two house rules. Either the 3.5 exception house rule or SKR's house rule. Neither are in the FAQ or Errata and, unless I am mistaken, it has been stated that Developer comments are not official rules clarifications unless they come from the PDT.
- Gauss
Ahhh Gilfalas, but SKR opened the door when he stated there was a 10' band.
Only if you take his personal rules observation as PF canon. Which he himself time and again has said no one should. He makes it VERY clear that it is his personal opinion and that can and does sometimes very from the core rules.
Even if you use a 5 foot step to move in from a corner square, you still have to stop on the corner square and then move in next turn. That is still one turn that the reach weapon user has not been attacked by a melee oriented adversary.
Reach weapons give more than that extra attack. They make your enemy move gingerly to engage you. On the turn they stop to wait to move in safely nothing stops you from moving a 5ft step yourself to put them in a fully threatened square and full attacking (depending on initiaive, map layout and # of enemies nearby, of course).
So again the question is, do dev rulings work in PFS or don't they?
I just read the PFS handbook and I am pretty sure it says in multiple places that the core rules are canon as well as any FAQ or ERRATA that has been published or any dev ruling that has been NOTED as being official.
SKR is very careful, usually, make it known his responses are not rulings. They are opinions.
Gilfalas, it is so nice that you read all of my comments. I am pretty sure you just repeated what I said. :)
Even if you hadn't read my comments, it would be nice if you quoted me in context. I stated what Silverace99 based his logic on and that I did not agree with the result.
As for the 'one turn', that is one turn the reach weapon user is unable to attack the person approaching from the corner.
- Gauss
Silverace99, I seem to remember some statement awhile back that Dev rulings ARE binding in PFS. But I am not a regular PFS player so I don't know for sure. I figure it would be a question for the PFS forum.
It seems to me that your first step would be to find out if the PFS declares any rulings made by Devs to be binding. If they don't there is no problem. IF they do, then this question MAY be an issue.
- Gauss
Sarcasm can be a pain in the ass when used on forums and the other folks are not sure if your serious or not.
Sorry for agreeing with you?
LOL ok Gilfalas, I read what you wrote literally.
Perhaps a sarcasm tag next time? Or some other clarification that you meant something other than what you said? :)
No worries.
- Gauss
You are misunderstanding the situation I am illustrating (I think).
No. I totally understand your question. Since you are specifically asking about 5 foot steps; which cannot be used with any other movement in a combat round; and using that step to move in on the diagnoal, it must mean that the round BEFORE the 5 foot step you finished on the second square away from a reach weapon user on a diagonal corner.
Since your using a 5 foot step to move on only a diagonal in that round (legal) and 5 foot steps never provoke (RAW) then it seems really, really simple to me.
I have been playing a Reach based fighter for a couple years so I am familiar with the reach basics.
LOL ok Gilfalas, I read what you wrote literally.
Perhaps a sarcasm tag next time? ... - Gauss
Wait ... you mean you were not being sarcastic? :)
Silverace99, people have been using 5' steps to move 10' for a long time. The only difference is that now the non-binding ruling states there is a 10' band that you can provoke if you move through it.
So, what we can take from this:
1) It is a non-binding ruling (except perhaps in PFS which, you'll need to ask that forum).
2) Rules-as-written states that 5' steps never provoke trumps the non-binding ruling. Even if PFS states the ruling is binding it would also have to support the 5' step rule that it does not provoke, ever.
3) The whole reach weapon+diagonals is all an unsatisfactory mess anyhow. No matter which way you go you have either:
The illogical (to some) effect of reaching into a square '15 feet away'
OR
The illogical (to many more) effect of people moving through diagonals without provoking.
OR
The unsupported ruling (that bugs many people) that there is an AoO moving from 15' to 5' via the diagonal.
In your home games, take your pick which one you want to deal with. In PFS games, 5' steps never provoke and they may, or may not, follow what the Devs state on the boards but not in the FAQ.
- Gauss
Gilfalas, I almost never use sarcasm because it is misinterpreted. I have not intentionally used it in this thread.
- Gauss
Gilfalas, I almost never use sarcasm because it is misinterpreted. I have not intentionally used it in this thread.
- Gauss
It's all good. I sadly have a very literal typing style which I hear in my head as being factual, precise and as non inflamatory as I can be but most folks seem to think it is me trying to be condescending (which I am anything but).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You are misunderstanding the situation I am illustrating (I think).No. I totally understand your question. Since you are specifically asking about 5 foot steps; which cannot be used with any other movement in a combat round; and using that step to move in on the diagnoal, it must mean that the round BEFORE the 5 foot step you finished on the second square away from a reach weapon user on a diagonal corner.
I don't know what you are saying there. Maybe some MS Paint will clear it up.
The starting situation (click links to see picture, since I can't embed image in the post):
Attacker is standing 2 diagonal square away
In the above image: If you believe that the attacker is 15 feet away (therefore not provoking), and the attacker makes a 5ft step diagonally to strike the spear dude, from a logical standpoint he should still be 10 feet away. However by rulebook interpration, he is actually now only 5ft away from the spear dude and can strike! And there is nothing the spear dude can do about it.
Magic! Avoided AOO completely.
Not only that, but let's say the attacker first had to take a move action to get to where he is standing in the first picture. Because moving into that square doesn't provoke unless you use 3.5 Exception, if the spear dude doesn't retreat, the attacker can on his next turn take that magic 5 ft step and strike.
The end result is that the spear user NEVER got to take an AOO even though an enemy conceptually moved from 15 feet away to 5 ft away and should therefore have been considered moving through a threatened square. It means that all you have to do is come at a reach user from the diagonal angle and you completely negate the advantage of his reach weapon.
But the spear user isn't getting screwed over, because to do that, the attacker had to spend two turns*--one moving into position, and one 5-footing adjacent. Against any other dude, the attacker could have just moved adjacent in turn one without provoking and made his attack. Hell, he could charge, getting a bonus.
*This is assuming you're using Sean's ruling to begin with. If you're not, the point is still moot, because the attacker doesn't even need the 5-foot step in that scenario, he can just move in on the diagonal and attack.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The spear user IS still getting screwed over. The enemy came from outside his reach to inside it without Lunge or Spring attack, and he still doesn't get an AOO! And by strict PFS rules the attacker CAN charge without provoking if he comes from the diagonal as shown below.
I was still editing my post to add a 3rd photo situation which is the problem SKR was covering (and that the 3.5 exception covers):
The problem is (and Gauss has been over this) is that I don't know if dev rulings have any affect on Pathfinder Society organized play. And frankly I'm not sure how to find out. searched through the google and didn't get a hit.
But in round one, when the enemy is in the 15-ft diagonal square, you can 5-ft step him into your reach and make a full attack. The only time he's actually getting any advantage here is if you are completely immobilized or unwilling to shift for some reason, and that's kind of a corner case.
On the other hand, if you do get an attack of opportunity for his 5-ft step, then he gets screwed, because that closes off half his options for approaching the spear user without provoking.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Only both situations ultimately favor the spear wielder (a little bit in the former, a lot in the latter), so in the balance, the spear user still isn't getting screwed.
You want to know the real solution? Find a home game, and convince your GM to use a hex-grid. :)
Benchak, I think your premise that you can 5' step a target into reach is faulty. Not all situations allow this. In fact, some circumstances (map orientation etc) basically make it so that a reach weapon user will NEVER get an attack, either AoO or regular one. Yes, those circumstances all revolve around the reach weapon user being constrained to stepping diagonally only. However, that does actually occur.
In short, people are NOT supposed to be able to approach a spear user without provoking. But using the current PF rules they can. This is a flaw in the rules that has not been adequately addressed.
- Gauss
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Benchak, I think your premise that you can 5' step a target into reach is faulty. Not all situations allow this. In fact, some circumstances (map orientation etc) basically make it so that a reach weapon user will NEVER get an attack, either AoO or regular one. Yes, those circumstances all revolve around the reach weapon user being constrained to stepping diagonally only. However, that does actually occur.
In short, people are NOT supposed to be able to approach a spear user without provoking. But using the current PF rules they can. This is a flaw in the rules that has not been adequately addressed.
- Gauss
I'm assuming you mean approach without provoking or spending a round in the spear users threatened area, because approaching without provoking is pretty easy.
And again, I think this is a corner case. If you're limited to moving diagonally, you can still step away from the enemy, or to his side, and put him in a situation where he can't 5-foot diagonal adjacent to you.
(In my home games, I'd even allow the spear-user to ready an action to stab him as he approaches through the 'phantom square', but of course that's not RAW, so you may not care)
And like I said, the spear user still forced the enemy to waste a round setting up a 5-foot step. If he's really truly immobilized and can't maneuver into place for a full attack, he's still got a full round of action to use in preparation for the enemy's attack (giving him the option of taking a full defense, switching to a close-range weapon, using a spell/SLA, whatever).
So like I said, it boils down to the spear user getting a little advantage from his reach, or getting a lot of advantage from his reach. Neither way is he getting screwed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except if the reach weilder is fighting in a 5' hall that is at a 45 degree angle to the grid, based on true RAW, he can never, ever attack his enemy. The first square is too close. The second square is too far away.
I would call that sufficiently screwed.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Except if the reach weilder is fighting in a 5' hall that is at a 45 degree angle to the grid, based on true RAW, he can never, ever attack his enemy. The first square is too close. The second square is too far away.
I would call that sufficiently screwed.
Which brings me back to my original point!
The grid is not the map. The grid is a tool to help you keep track of where people are on the map. It's a convenience. If the grid is causing problems, change it. Nothing in the rules says you can't rotate maps. Align the squares with the hallway and you get no problems.
If you use the 3.5 exception, Esquin, yes, it is. But that is not Pathfinder RAW.
Esquin - The 3.5 exception is not a cube except for 10' reach.
Benchak - It is a rule that you can't change the grid to make things fit your tactics. You can't turn a spell template 45 degrees to see if you can get more creatures in an Area of Effect just as you can't turn the grid 45 degrees to "reach" more opponents.
If I could turn the grid I can shorten/increase my distances. On a 45 degree angle using the rules, 20 squares is 150'. But in actual inches, it is 28.28. So, if I was 28" away from my target, it would count as 150' on a 45 degree angle but only 140' on the straight line. Cleary you cannot change the grid to fit your tactics.
I don't like any of the solutions, but to say the problem does not exist is not a fair assessment. I understand that nothing can be perfect, but I think we all agree the reach fighter needs some RAW way to be able to fight in an angled hall.
Benchak, it boils down to this: You should NEVER be able to get within 5ft of a reach weapon user without him being able to attack you from where he is standing unless you have Spring Attack or the environment provides you with cover.
Um wrong? 5 foot steps are specifically there to do just that, either from a corner square of from coming straight on at the guy using the reach weapon. If your willing to lose the attack rounds to approach super cautiously then you can get next to a reach user without causing any AoO. But it will be giving them full attacks while you get none.
You want to fix this? Get rid of the grid and go back to the days of Original D&D and measure things on a table with tape measures or rulers. Then when you use your 6 inches of movement in a move action (one square on most common grids is an inch)which represents 30 feet you will not have to worry about squares and corners messing up your reach.
Then again the 5 foot step will STILL be there and if used correctly will STILL allow you to approach and engage reach weapon users without causing an AoO. It will again slow you down giving them full attacks for a round while you get none but that is part of the utility of a reach weapon.
In ANY case, the answer to all your questions have already been posted:
In the thread you linked SKR specifically said his response was notFAQ and he does not do FAQ.
The PFS Playbook rules states only official FAQ or ERRATA affect Society play.
The core rules state that a 5 foot step of any kind never causes an attack of opportunity.
These answer your questions. Just because you do not like the answer does not make them any less valid.
Um, Gilfalas the 5' step rule is fine. But the way the grid works RAW, you can charge a spear wielder from a 45 degree angle who is braced with a spear, from 100' away and he can never attack you as he does not threaten the squares that you enter.
Um, Gilfalas the 5' step rule is fine. But the way the grid works RAW, you can charge a spear wielder from a 45 degree angle who is braced with a spear, from 100' away and he can never attack you as he does not threaten the squares that you enter.
Well sometimes crap happens in combat. If your enemy can setup a perfect charge along only the diagnonal angle from 100' feet away then perhaps he deserves to get it.
And I keep mentioning the 5 foot step because it seemed to specifically be the bone of contention with the OP's corner approach case and explicitly stated in his question.
And as for the 5 foot wide angled hall issues, I would hazard that a reach weapon in that situation in the real world would also be pretty screwed so it seems RIGHT to me that it does not work in game that way.
Not all weapons are perfect for all things. Hence why humanity has made so many of them in so many varied designs.
You think a piercing polearm defender cannot protect from a charge through a bottleneck? If so, you have never been in any type of combat with weapons. This is EXACTLY the type of area where these polearms excel. Hence why humanity made them.
Gilfalas, the point here is that there ARE situations where against all logic you can move up to a person with reach and never give them a chance to hit you with either a regular attack OR an AoO.
Examples:
1) Creature charges or moves along the diagonal to the reach weapon user. Result? No AoO.
2) Reach weapon user preps a readied action to attack someone who comes at him. Creature charges or moves along the diagonal to the reach weapon user. Result? No AoO and the reach weapon user is unable to attack because at no point is the Creature in his threat range.
3) Creature moves to the second diagonal. Reach weapon user has no lateral place to go that would pute the Creature in his reach. He cannot, EVER, attack because of this.
Your solution to all of these? Change the grid! Unfortunately, while that would work (with extreme difficulty) in home games that does not apply to PFS.
I have played reach weapon users in PFS. I have been screwed by this already. I have been in situations where I could not attack because I had no lateral position to move to.
So I ask you, why do you support the inability for a reach weapon user to attack 10' away from him? This has nothing to do with 'imperfect weapon'. This is entirely due to Paizo's inexplicable removal of the 3.5 exception.
- Gauss
The fact is a 5 foot step is a special free action that never causes an attack of opportunity. It also cannot be combined in the same round with any action spent for any other standard movement (flying, ground movement, burrowing and so forth).
I agree with this. I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. The perspective should be that of the Target, not the attacker, or even the perspective of the ground or other bystanders. The Target moves, PROVOKING an attack of opportunity. The Target PROVOKES this attack, whether or not someone is in a position to take advantage of it. It is his action, just like many other things that a character can do, that causes the attack of opportunity. The 5 ft step movement (and, not to confuse the issue, but also the withdraw) let you bypass the provoke that you normally make when moving. In your scenario, the Target moved 5 ft FROM HIS/HER PERSPECTIVE, and therefore did not provoke the attack.
Um, Gilfalas the 5' step rule is fine. But the way the grid works RAW, you can charge a spear wielder from a 45 degree angle who is braced with a spear, from 100' away and he can never attack you as he does not threaten the squares that you enter.Well sometimes crap happens in combat. If your enemy can setup a perfect charge along only the diagnonal angle from 100' feet away then perhaps he deserves to get it.
And I keep mentioning the 5 foot step because it seemed to specifically be the bone of contention with the OP's corner approach case and explicitly stated in his question.
And as for the 5 foot wide angled hall issues, I would hazard that a reach weapon in that situation in the real world would also be pretty screwed so it seems RIGHT to me that it does not work in game that way.
Not all weapons are perfect for all things. Hence why humanity has made so many of them in so many varied designs.
...and yet, here is where I would disagree with you. As Benchak pointed out, the whole grid system is just to aid players and GMs when playing. It doesn't really matter how that grid is placed. You could take a picture of a room, lay a grid over it, and the weapons you use would work just the same as if you picked the grid back up and rotated it 45 degrees before placing it back down over that same room. In that angled hallway, or an angled charge, I would argue (or rule if I was the GM) that the mover DOES provoke an attack, because they are not utilizing the 5 ft step to cancel the provoke. So, when I answered the OP above, I was being specific to the 5ft step, not all movement.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Benchak - It is a rule that you can't change the grid to make things fit your tactics. You can't turn a spell template 45 degrees to see if you can get more creatures in an Area of Effect just as you can't turn the grid 45 degrees to "reach" more opponents.
If I could turn the grid I can shorten/increase my distances. On a 45 degree angle using the rules, 20 squares is 150'. But in actual inches, it is 28.28. So, if I was 28" away from my target, it would count as 150' on a 45 degree angle but only 140' on the straight line. Cleary you cannot change the grid to fit your tactics.
Komoda, I should specify, I was talking about the GM adjusting the grid in setting up the encounter.
Benchak, That, I can agree with.
But Jason, they don't. And to rule as you would, which is what I would do as GM as well, you would have to break the rules as written.
It isn't just a crazy corner case, it is a gaping hole in the reach rules. It is one that the staff knows about and hasn't seen fit to fill yet. I am ok with that, but people need to accept it rather than just say it isn't true.
Understanding that there is no RAW for it is the first step to adjudicating at your table and the first step in getting RAW made for it.
Komoda, I should specify, I was talking about the GM adjusting the grid in setting up the encounter.
I understood you. As was I. During design, the orientation of the grid as it is laid on top of the map should have no impact on how weapons work... But obviously once mobile features are added (like the PCs and monsters), the grid should be fixed.
So back to the diagonal charge, if the grid were oriented along the path of movement, the defender would get that AOO, so there is no reason that the same movement should bypass the AOO just because of an abstraction that doesn't actually exist in the character's world.
EDIT: Komoda, that may be (I don't have the book with me) but I think it jives with RAI and common sense.
It may not be a wall that causes the 45 degree. It may be the creatures involved. The grid will be set, the situation will come up. It can't be hand waved RAW. That is my only point.
I think that most of us agree that it should provoke on an angle, but by RAW, it doesn't.
Understood.