ARBITRIUM's page

Counting the squares works if you count the square in front of the character, then to the left/right of that, and then up to the back corner. If you count in diagonals, every 2nd diagonal counted constitutes double distance. So, the first diagonal is 5 ft, the second is considered 10 ft independent of the previous 5 ft, and the overall distance using either method is 15 feet, not 10 feet.

Either way, all of my questions are solved. Thanks everyone!

EDIT: That top part is in regard to DesolateHarmony.

Thanks for the explanation on the flanking, Bandw2.

EDIT 2: Or, rather, distance clarification over straight lines.

I think I found the problem, and it's inherent with the grid system. A 5 foot by 5 foot square has a diagonal of 7 feet. For the sake of actual measurement, a 10 foot long and 10 foot wide monster has a 14 foot diagonal. They actually incorporated this into the cone examples they made for magic, and it's the specific reason why the middle part of a diagonally cast 15 ft cone doesn't take up 3 squares - that would be 21 feet. There is even a specific rule for magic that dicatates each second diagonal takes up 10 feet - which isn't true, but gets you to 15ft instead of 14 feet.

So, yes, DesolateHarmony is right, and so were my players, but not for the reasons mentioned. The square furthest from the Eagle while 5 ft by 5 feet, actually represents 7 feet of monster. Which would mean that square of the monster would incur the penalty because technically half of the square added to the first diagonal is beyond 10 feet diagonally (14 ft). This also means that 1 section of large beasts is always target-able without penalty by ranged characters - that section being the back square.

The way flanking works in Pathfinder (and earlier D&D) is specifically to take facing and its complications out of the game. You are correct, there is no 'back' to shoot at. Unless, the creature is being flanked. Opponents on both sides at the same time.

Oh, I didn't know that, but thanks to you two for bringing it up.

The large creature (all large creatures occupy 4 squares, long or tall. Long or tall only has to do with the reach of the creature) is 10 feet across. Counting from the eagle, the far side of the large creature is 10 feet away. 2 squares is 10 feet. So, firing at the worg from the far side would not incur the 'in melee' penalty.

Why doesn't the ranger have precise shot?

I'm still a little confused on this matter. The squares are indicators of distance, yes, but they do not appropriately represent the beast within them sometimes - the description of a dire wolf in the book itself even says that full adult males can grow UP to 9 feet. Yet, a dire wolf is still considered large(10ft by 10ft) creature.

My question is, why is the back square considered not within 10 feet if, by 5 foot measurements, the furthest side of the second square would be the 10 foot marker (or in the case you mentioned, the corner would measure the full 10 ft)?

So, if the eagle was flanking the wolf with an ally, the eagle and ally would be 15 feet away from each other, because you count the two squares that the wolf takes up, plus the square that your ally is in.

Why wouldn't you measure from right edge of the eagle square to the left edge of the ally square? Just curious.

Ok, good! This answers other subsidiary questions I had given that as well. Much appreciated!

Anyone have info on the others?

This is my first time DMing a game, and though I know some of the rules, I don't know everything and it seems my group is continuously coming up with new things I've never heard of/there aren't any certain rules for that I can find. So, I have some questions on a few things:

1. [Answered] The wizard keeps casting the "Mount" spell, would there be any reason why he couldn't train the mount for 6 hours at a time each day to eventually be "combat trained"? Or does each casting of mount constitute a new horse?

2. [Answered] We are all a little confused on how animals with multiple attacks work. I do know that if you make a full-attack action that you can use all attacks available, so, in the case of an Eagle [2 talons +3 (1d4)/ bite +3 (1d4)] and an Owlbear [2 claws +8 (1d6+4 plus grab), bite +8 (1d6+4)] is this three attacks? Or two? Do you have to roll a 2d20+3 or 2d20+8 and your respective damage twice, or does the 2 talons/2 claws attack constitute ONE attack and is simply indicating that you're using two limbs in the attack?

If you move during the same turn, are you only afforded the primary attack? Or, can you choose between the primary and secondary?

3. My sorcerer uses Summon Monster A LOT, which is fine. The rules indicate that if you can talk with the animal, you can point out specific targets and whether or not the summoned monster attacks. Does this constitute a handle animal check or is it simply inherent to the spell? Secondly, does this mean, without instruction, that the summoned monster will simply aggro to the closest enemy until it dissipates? If it kills that enemy, does it re-aggro if possible?

4) My group recently fought two dire wolves - which are Large Long creatures (5ft reach/10ft long). Our Sorcerer summoned an Eagle to attack one of the wolves. Meanwhile, our Ranger positioned himself in a way to get line of sight on its back, and shot.

Normally, when a creature is in melee combat, it constitutes a -4 to hit for ranged weapons. However, because the dire wolf is x2 bigger than the Eagle it was fighting, it changes to a -2. That is fine. However, some members of the group started arguing that there should be no penalty for shooting the back of the wolf because of the size differential.

The rule states that, "If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character."

I was under the impression that this meant Huge creatures or greater (or creatures that have a 10ft reach). Considering large long creatures are only 10 ft with a 5 ft reach, they, in my opinion, therefore could not possibly be considered "at least 10 feet away" in any way. However, the members started to argue space in the sense of length of the creatures involved, and BETWEEN the creatures involved. Something like "Well, you're assuming that the creatures are touching heads...there would be space between..." and so on. To me, this is incorrect.

In my opinion, the space a creature takes up and its adjacent threatened squares constitute a "battle zone" where the eagle and wolf are fighting in melee - a la, jumping/flying around and fighting, constantly clashing and moving around, you know...like a real fight - which means that though the wolf is large, you still have a chance to shoot your ally, as they are constantly moving. Thus, the need for a penalty.

However, my group seems to believe that, for all intents and purposes, it's more like a pokemon battle. Where the wolf and eagle are stationary until they take their turns, there is a space between them that they cross only to attack, and then they reset. If this is so, then their argument is contingent on the distance from the Eagle's beak and the wolf's tail..which shouldn't even be necessary, because we are given their sizes - 5ft small creature, 10 ft large long creature. So, which is it?

Is the large creature outside of the rule because it isn't long enough in congruence with the squares, or should I be taking out my measuring tape each combat, gathering the sizes of each animal, and the "assumed" distance between them, and making rules based on "well, the eagle is 3.75 feet, there is 1 foot between, and the wolf is 9.02 feet, which means you can shoot at the tail of the wolf without penalty"?

Sorry for the long post, but these are the issues!