Not all feats are meant to be used in all situations. Most feats are meant to address specific issues. Step Up seems to be one of those.
I don't think it's was meant to mesh with reach weapons, which already give you a 5' comfort zone and specific advantages.
WITHOUT Step Up
a mage can move towards or away from you and blast your face off w/o consequence.
as long as he is not stupid enough to move directly next to you.
Sorry but I agree with Gilfalas. The feat specifically says you have to be adjacent to the enemy that moved. It doesn't even mention threatened area in any way.
If someone takes a 5' step to get inside the area you threaten with your reach weapon then just use an unarmed attack or make a disarm/trip/grapple attack. You won't have to worry about the AoO for not having the feats because the person adjacent to you is already taking their action.
All that being said, there is no rule that says you can't house rule the feat for your specific usage within your campaign setting.
Ok so according to the step up feat p135 PHB, "whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5' step away from you, you may also make a 5' step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you.....total movement" Although this is a fantastic feat for staying near to bow fighters and magic users with a non-reach weapon, what is the implication with regards to a reach weapon? you can't use this feat RAW (rules as written).
One of the problems with this feat RAW is that if you have a reach weapon, a mage can move towards or away from you and blast your face off w/o consequence.
Player: I move to threaten the mage.
GM: the mage takes a 5' step forward/back and...
Player: wait! I use my step up with my generic reach weapon (GRW)to threaten the mage. Not this time fiendish caster! MWAHHAHAHA
GM: you can't, read the feat.
Player: mumblemumblemumble...adjacent...mumblemumble...son of a...
GM: and hits you with a maximized empowered lightning bolt.
player: awww maaaannn...A non reach fighter can use this ability against a reach fighter to horrible concequence.
GM: the fighter takes a 5' step towards you and swings his...
Player: wait! I use step up and move backwards...
GM: you can't. And the fighter hits you for 18 points. now its your turn.
Player: I take a 5' step back with my GRW and wallup...
GM: Wait! the fighter uses step up and moves with you.
Player: so you are telling me I can't even attack him this round...
GM: yes.
Player: awesome... I move away.
GM: ok the fighter gets an attack of opportunity... and you take 13 points of damage.Now IF I were the DM, I believe the spirit of this feat is "whenever an enemy you threaten takes a 5' step to a square you do not threaten, you may also make a 5' step as an immediate action so long as you end up threatening the foe that triggered this ability"
now I can hit that amazing mage that is standing right in front of me! and fights with non-reach fighters get pretty crazy tactically with...
Use a spiked gauntlet. I agree that this feat has some issues and you point them out well but i think its still what the devs intended. I have a disarm ransuer fighter so i know how you feel but the spiked gauntlet works wonders.
|
Is there no "Choke Up" or similar feat in PF yet? That's surprising, and something I totally didn't realize. So, if you're wielding a reach weapon you're not threatening someone directly adjacent to you? That seems silly. I'd hope that gets addressed in the APG. If not, I'd be curious to hear the design decision behind the lack of such a feat.
I'm sure there's a good reason, I just have no idea what it would be.
In another thread there was the idea that you could always use the haft of your polearm as an improvised weapon (-4 to attack, damage 1d6) to hit an adjacent foe.
In another thread there was the idea that you could always use the haft of your polearm as an improvised weapon (-4 to attack, damage 1d6) to hit an adjacent foe.
Hmm, i like that idea. I'll allow that in mine.
Alternatively, the catch off guard improvised weapon feats will work with that tactic wise, asa way to simulate a "choke up" feat in pathfinder.
Lastly, don't forget about options like...spiked gauntlet, armor spikes, improved unarmed strike.
Once again, there is no mention of threatened area in the feat. It is not meant to maintain threat, it's meant to move with someone standing next to you if they try to step away. So in your example, yes fighter A just stands there like a dummy. If fighter A doesn't like that idea, he can be holding his actions to react to whatever the mage does. That is a perfectly acceptable mechanic that is already built into RAW. OR, fighter A could take Lunge and add 5' to his reach for his turn thus allowing him to threaten spaces that someone would 5' step into away from him.
I believe the feat as written is exactly what the devs intended it to be.
Hit you with a maximized empowered ligntning bolt? You should thank your DM for being so generous!
He could have hit you with:
Trap the Soul
Imprisonment
Irresistable Dance
Power Word Stun
Any of which would almost certainly put an end to this fight. Instead, you take a little damage and kill this pesky mage next round...
don't forget about options like...spiked gauntlet, armor spikes, improved unarmed strike.
Well, since we're on this tangent and not bothering to address the OP's concern that Step Up is imbalanced vs. reach weapons...
One should not have to wear expensive, unrealistic, and/or silly armor/equipment, or burn extra feats, just to have an alternative solution to doing what every proficient polearm wielder in the entire history of real polearms could automatically do.
And I say alternative because, in the RAW, no amount of spikes and no amount of unarmed training will allow a polearm wielder to hit an adjacent enemy with any part of his polearm. He's weilding a polearm because he wants to hit his enemies with his polearm, so solutions to let him wield a polearm so he can head-butt his enemies don't really solve his problem.
In fact, it requires less training to bash someone with the "stick" end of most polearms than it requires to use the "pointy" end of them properly. Further, it is easier to hit someone with the sharp bladed end of a halberd, glaive, etc., when they are next to you than it is to hit them when they are more than 5' away. These things are all built into the basic training someone would receive in order to call themselves "proficient" with such weapons.
The game system needs ways to make such things viable. Ordinary usage of these weapons, not requiring spending extra feats or executing penalized maneuvers to pull it off.
If we had that, then the OP's concern wouldn't be a problem at all.
A non reach fighter can use this ability against a reach fighter to horrible concequence.
GM: the fighter takes a 5' step towards you and swings his...
Player: wait! I use step up and move backwards...
GM: you can't. And the fighter hits you for 18 points. now its your turn.
Player: I take a 5' step back with my GRW and wallup...
GM: Wait! the fighter uses step up and moves with you.
Player: so you are telling me I can't even attack him this round...
GM: yes.
Player: awesome... I move away.
GM: ok the fighter gets an attack of opportunity... and you take 13 points of damage.
There are some finer points here:
1. Just to be clear: You can never use the Step Up feat to move backwards when someone steps toward you. I guess your example where the GM says "You can't" might mean this GM is explaining this rule to a player who didn't know it, but it's not clear from your text so I'm calling attention to this fact specifically.
2. "awesome... I move away." is illegal. This player alredy used a 5-foot move this round, and you cannot move in the same round that you use a 5-foot move. Therefore, he cannot "move away" and he cannot provoke that AoO via movement.
3. Instead of "I take a 5' step back with my GRW and wallup..." the player could say "I move 5' back and wallup the fighter with my GRW." Yes, because this is not a "5-foot step", it will provoke. But the fighter won't be able to use Step Up and now that the player is at the correct range, he can use his GRW to wail on the fighter. It's not perfect (who wants to provoke an AoO every round?) but at least it lets the GRW guy use his weapon against an enemy with Step Up.
OR, fighter A could take Lunge and add 5' to his reach for his turn thus allowing him to threaten spaces that someone would 5' step into away from him.
Which would do him no good at all because Lunge only lets him threaten those squares on his own turn, and since none of his enemies will be taking their 5-foot steps on his turn, he will gain no benefit.
Step up never talks about reach only about being adjacent. That limits it to 8 squares on the combat grid adjacent to the feat holder.
If a character could follow a target they simply threatened without provoking they would have too much choice over too large an area. Using the feat for reach weapons would allow the feat to affect 16 more squares - too powerful a jump.
If you want to use the feat get adjacent.
I always house-rule Step Up can work with a reach weapon. That's just personal preference though.
How's that working out for you? Have you seen the same abuses that have been discussed here? Any surprise interactions you didn't inticipate? Inquirering minds want to know.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Step up never talks about reach only about being adjacent. That limits it to 8 squares on the combat grid adjacent to the feat holder.
If a character could follow a target they simply threatened without provoking they would have too much choice over too large an area. Using the feat for reach weapons would allow the feat to affect 16 more squares - too powerful a jump.
If you want to use the feat get adjacent.
Your count is off. A human with a normal reach weapon threatens 12 extra squares, not 16. A giant (normally 10' reach with non-reach weapon) threatens 40 extra squares if he uses a normal reach weapon sized appropriately for him (up from the 20 squares he normally threatens).
Human with longsword threatens 8 squares (marked x):
x x x
x H x
x x x
Human with halberd threatens 12 squares (marked x, he cannot hit the squares marked o):
o x x x o
x o o o x
x o H o x
x o o o x
o x x x o
Giant with longsword threatens 20 squares (marked x, he cannot hit the squares marked o):
o x x x o
x x x x x
x x G x x
x x x x x
o x x x o
Giant with halberd threatens 40 squares (marked x, he cannot hit the squares marked o):
o o o x x x o o o
o x x x x x x x o
o x x o o o x x o
x x o o o o o x x
x x o o G o o x x
x x o o o o o x x
o x x o o o x x o
o x x x x x x x o
o o o x x x o o o
None of which matters to this duscussion, actually. It doesn't matter whether you threaten an extra 12 squares or an extra 12,000 squares - that data is entirely irrelevant when deciding if the Step Up feat is broken or balanced.
"Why?" you might ask...
Counting squares is meaningless to this discussion because no matter who you are, no matter what weapon you're wielding, no matter how many squares you threaten, you can only use the feat to follow one enemy per round, and you can only follow that enemy exactly 5 feet.
Assuming we houserule that the intent of the feat was to let any combatant follow one threatened enemy who uses a 5-foot Step to move out of a threatened space, then what difference does it make whether the enemy is adjacent and moves to be 5' away, or whether he's is 20' away from you and moves to be 25' away? Either way, your threatened foe moves 5' away from you and then you immediately use Step Up to allow you to move 5' toward that enemy.
It's exactly the same thing. No different.
Sigurd's argument that reach weapons threaten more squares, so wielders of feat weapons can apply Step Up to potentially more targets is a flawed argument.
It's flawed because, during combat, you are going to choose the best target you can choose, move to your best range to attack that target, and make your best attack against that target. If that target uses a 5-foot Step to get away, you would follow him. If some other target that is also within your threat range but is not your primary target uses a 5-foot Step to get away, you will not follow him - you have a more important target that you need to keep within your reach.
Or put another way:
A human with a longsword threatening 8 adjacent squares might have 8 orcs around him. One of those is an orc shaman, and the human wants to kill that shaman first. On the orcs' turn, all 8 of them take a 5-foot Step to move back so they can use ranged attacks on the human, but the human uses Step Up to follow that shaman.
Or a human with a halberd threatening 12 non-adjacent squares might have 12 orcs around him. One of those is an orc shaman, and the human wants to kill that shaman first. On the orcs' turn, all 12 of them take a 5-foot Step to move back so they can use ranged attacks on the human, but the human uses Step Up to follow that shaman.
No difference. Mechanically, it's exactly the same, with or without reach.
As for me, I see no valid argument against the proposed houserule.
|
|
Yeah, I don't see any reason not to allow that as a houserule, either, and I'm going to suggest to my co-DM that we do so when we start our Kingmaker AP in August.
Side note, Blake, did you ever see any abuses or problems with "Choke Up" in 3.5? I think I may want to introduce that as a houserule, too. I mean, Halbardiers and pikemen back in the old days used to duke it out all the time, and I think that to suggest that they never got any closer than 10' away from each other is silly.
|
I always house-rule Step Up can work with a reach weapon. That's just personal preference though.How's that working out for you? Have you seen the same abuses that have been discussed here? Any surprise interactions you didn't inticipate? Inquirering minds want to know.
Tends to work fine, i've not seen any huge problems with it yet, including enlarge person on the character in question. It means that if the enemies get too close to the polearm-wielder, if he uses step up he knows he won't easily be able to bring his polearm to bear against adjacent fores next turn, as he won't be able to 5" away. Tends to make it quite a tactical decision to make a lot of the time. Against a lone medium sized wizard/primary spellcaster totally on his/her own of course its going to be nasty, but if that wizard's dumb enough to be on his own and that close to a strong looking guy with a glaive, he's already mostly doomed.
I'm also in strong agreement with Blake's post- it's a perfectly acceptable houserule, go for it.
Yeah, I don't see any reason not to allow that as a houserule, either, and I'm going to suggest to my co-DM that we do so when we start our Kingmaker AP in August.
Side note, Blake, did you ever see any abuses or problems with "Choke Up" in 3.5? I think I may want to introduce that as a houserule, too. I mean, Halbardiers and pikemen back in the old days used to duke it out all the time, and I think that to suggest that they never got any closer than 10' away from each other is silly.
I had a 150-page document of 3.5 houserules. More than half of it was feats (including core and splat and homebrew, I had about 1400 feats and had them all in a big spreadsheet, plus the doc had full descriptions of every homebrew feat and every houseruled feat that I changed).
One feat I never used was Short Haft. Mainly because I added that ability into the basic combat rules. Any proficient polearm user threatened all squares adjacent as well as the normal reach squares, and can make normal attacks at adjacent enemies. He takes a -2 penalty to hit for using his weapon sub-optimally, and he can only apply normal STR damage (rather than the usual x1.5 for two hands) - in this regard it's sort of like using a double-weapon; even though two hands are on the weapon, the primary attack uses normal STR damage.
I also houseruled that all such polearms are double-weapons and can be used like any other double weapon without requiring any extra feats - just normal proficiency. The primary end is whatever it is, and the other end is a staff. All normal rules for double weapons and TWF apply, including the -2 to hit for sub-optimal polearm use (which only applied to the deadly end; the staff end had no attack penalty to keep it from being useless).
With these houserules, polearm users were just as effective at reach as the RAW let them be, but they were still useful when they didn't have reach (instead of being needlessly helpless). The wielders still tried to get reach whenever they could for the extra damage. And some people used TWF feats to get good at using these polearms as dual-weapons.
At first I thought it was overpowered. I was afraid that every fighter would use polearms and everything else (swords, axes, maces, etc.) would become obsolete. And at first that's what happened for a while; my players jumped on it. Then they found out they missed their shields. And double-weapon users could get a pretty good double-weapon without needing an Exotic Weapon feat, but it was -2 to hit, so anyone who wanted to focus on this path usually picked a normal double-weapon.
When the newness wore off, I was back to having no polearm users in any of my groups, but I got fairly repectable use for them with bad guys and with NPCs, and they never overshadowed the rest of the weapons (but in return, they were no longer overshadowed, either).
Your count is off. A human with a normal reach weapon threatens 12 extra squares, not 16. A giant (normally 10' reach with non-reach weapon) threatens 40 extra squares if he uses a normal reach weapon sized appropriately for him (up from the 20 squares he normally threatens).
No, his count is correct. Your diagram for a human with a reach weapon is wrong. Unless Pathfinder changed it, characters with 10 ft. reach weapons can strike 16 squares, not 12. It's been that way since 3.5e, I don't remember reading that being changed. Now, if they had 15 ft. reach weapon, then those diagonals would be counted. I am sure diagonals don't count for 10 ft. of reach.
None of which matters to this duscussion, actually. It doesn't matter whether you threaten an extra 12 squares or an extra 12,000 squares - that data is entirely irrelevant when deciding if the Step Up feat is broken or balanced.
But it is relevant in this case, the OP is trying to make it about threat. Nobody is arguing that you can only follow one target, the question is about where that target is starting from. The OP states that because someone with a reach weapon threatens squares 5' away but not adjacent he should be able to retain threat when someone 5' steps out of it. That's not the way the feat is written and just about everyone agrees that if you want it to work differently then house rule it, myself included.
If you want to have the advantages that come with a reach weapon then you need to be willing to accept the disadvantages as well. Polearms are not in any way designed for use up close, even as a double weapon. As for the staff argument, a quarterstaff is a 5' long balanced stick and a glaive is a 7' long pole with a blade stuck to one end weighing it down.
No, his count is correct. Your diagram for a human with a reach weapon is wrong. Unless Pathfinder changed it, characters with 10 ft. reach weapons can strike 16 squares, not 12. It's been that way since 3.5e, I don't remember reading that being changed. Now, if they had 15 ft. reach weapon, then those diagonals would be counted. I am sure diagonals don't count for 10 ft. of reach.
Your count is off. A human with a normal reach weapon threatens 12 extra squares, not 16. A giant (normally 10' reach with non-reach weapon) threatens 40 extra squares if he uses a normal reach weapon sized appropriately for him (up from the 20 squares he normally threatens).
Hmmm, I think you're going to have to find that in the RAW for me then, or some official clarification that I've missed.
Because, until you do, I am going to take the RAW as, well, as RAW. And since it says that reach weapons allow you to hit opponents 10' away, and it doesn't say you can also hit opponents 15' away, then those corners are out of range for typical ranged weapons.
There are specific instructions for measuring diagonals given in the combat section. Sure, it's there for calculating movement, but it's not like the yardstick suddenly gets longer when we measure threat squares. We use the same yardstick for both. Same rules for both.
Unless someone can help me find an official source that says otherwise.
Core p.180:Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).
Notice it says generally it's adjacent squares.
If you have 10' reach you threaten creatures 10' away, including diagonally.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Core p.180:Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).
Notice it says generally it's adjacent squares.
If you have 10' reach you threaten creatures 10' away, including diagonally.
That's just an extrapolation.
What you really just said is this: "If you have 10' reach you threaten creatures 10' away, including creatures 15' diagonally away."
When you say it that way, it sounds kinda silly, doesn't it?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Agreed, it does sound silly IMO. I've always thought so. But the 3.5 rules said it specifically and PF hasn't said it doesn't work that way anymore. Confusing that they didn't keep the black and white wording tho.
Here's the wording from 3.5:Creatures that take up more than 1 square typically have a natural reach of 10 feet or more, meaning that they can reach targets even if they aren’t in adjacent squares. For instance, an ogre can attack targets up to 10 feet (2 squares) away from it in any direction, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)
*edit* I suppose it's more realistic tho.
Pretty much, this rule only counts for 10 ft. reach, not reach beyond that. If you had 15 ft. reach, yes, then the squares start getting clunky.
Pretty much, this rule only counts for 10 ft. reach, not reach beyond that. If you had 15 ft. reach, yes, then the squares start getting clunky.
What makes you say that? Merely because it's 'clunky', or have you seen a ruling i haven't?
I'm genuinely interested, not being snarky.
In all honesty I could probably believe the person who wrote the feat didn't think about Reach weapon users.
I believe the same thing.
Since there is no compelling argument from either a gamist or a simulationist POV against using this feat with a reach weapon, I prefer the Occam's Razor approach:
Which seems more likely?
A. The author failed to consider the impact of his wording on reach weapons
or
B. The author realized his wording excluded reach weapons and he deliberately chose this exclusive wording despite having no compelling reason to exclude reach weapons, thereby creating an unrealistic and unnecessary flaw in the rules.
or
C. There really is a compelling reason for the exclusion and I'm too dense to see it.
Since I am far too pompous to give any credence to C, and since A is far more likely than B, I therefore conclude that this wording is author oversight.
QED
Your count is off. A human with a normal reach weapon threatens 12 extra squares, not 16. A giant (normally 10' reach with non-reach weapon) threatens 40 extra squares if he uses a normal reach weapon sized appropriately for him (up from the 20 squares he normally threatens).
This is incorrect. A human with a reach weapon does indeed threaten on diagonals, as indicated here in the d20pfsrd: Area Effect Diagrams. That same chart is somewhere in the core rules, I just don't remember where. A large creature with a non-reach weapon can also hit diagonals. Large creatures with reach weapons do start to not threaten diagonals, however.
More on-topic with Step Up, I can see it being a problem for creatures with large threat areas, definitely. Personally I've never seen a reach build that doesn't have a spiked gauntlet or armor spikes or something that lets them threaten melee, though, so I don't see it as a huge problem.
A feat for short-hafting reach weapons would be nice, but all arguments about how easy it is to do in real life are overruled by game balance IMO. It is a balancing factor for reach weapons that they can't hit nearby targets. Reach weapons that can hit nearby targets risk being overpowered (see: Spiked Chain).
Since I am far too pompous to give any credence to C, and since A is far more likely than B, I therefore conclude that this wording is author oversight.
I think its an effort by Pathfinder to keep reach mechanics balanced. It seems somewhat trivial when talking about PC's but perhaps if you fought a pack of larger sized monsters it would become a bit unwieldy. The (insert spellcaster) would always be in threat range of the melee attackers especially those with extreme reach and Step Up.
I think this is the same logic applied to Stand Still, while it seems only a minor wording issue it could make encounter design degrade quickly.
Physically weak characters would not be able to escape if they were in range of a large (or larger creature). It is convenient to leave "outs" for players.
Or so it seems to me anyway...
Because, until you do, I am going to take the RAW as, well, as RAW. And since it says that reach weapons allow you to hit opponents 10' away, and it doesn't say you can also hit opponents 15' away, then those corners are out of range for typical ranged weapons.
I don't know too much about this one, but I would think that 2 diagonal squares would be covered by the reach weapon's threat range. As far as I can recall from the Pathfinder book, 2 diagonal squares in a sequence only count for 15' when talking about character movement.
Though I also submit the diagram for spell area of effect for 10' spheres (p.215 of the PF core rules) which has the corners cut out inexplicably. My guess is to mimic a sphere more accurately? Kinda like a pixelated sphere.
What you really just said is this: "If you have 10' reach you threaten creatures 10' away, including creatures 15' diagonally away."When you say it that way, it sounds kinda silly, doesn't it?
You'd be right if the squares themselves were divisible but threatening part of the square is threatening the square, even diagonally. The blade can threaten where movement might not allow. This makes sense if you think that threatened squares are not affected by difficult terrain either.
This was changed\clarified in 3.5 RAW.
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons (such as a longspear) threaten more squares than a typical creature. For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.) In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more; see Big and Little Creatures in Combat.
Looks like the diagram was never made but the text is in the 3.5 Players Handbook (p.137) as quoted, including the diagonal distance exception.
I really appreciate the thoroughness of your disagreeing with me. Thanks for catching the counting mistake. It would be shallow recompense to not be prepared when I can show you you're wrong :).
Sigurd
Your count is off. A human with a normal reach weapon threatens 12 extra squares, not 16. A giant (normally 10' reach with non-reach weapon) threatens 40 extra squares if he uses a normal reach weapon sized appropriately for him (up from the 20 squares he normally threatens).This is incorrect. A human with a reach weapon does indeed threaten on diagonals, as indicated here in the d20pfsrd: Area Effect Diagrams. That same chart is somewhere in the core rules, I just don't remember where. A large creature with a non-reach weapon can also hit diagonals. Large creatures with reach weapons do start to not threaten diagonals, however.
Thanks for tip, and a link to unofficial, player-created threat range diagrams. Can you please show me a link to official threat range diagrams?
Until then, I think I'll stick to the actual words printed in the official core rulebook: "a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away."
That says "10 feet away". It does not say "10 to 15 feet away". Put a blade on a 6-8 foot pole and try to hit someone 15 feet away, it's just not gonna work. I see no simulationist or gamist reason to allow it, and I see no RAW that allows it, so I think I'll ignore the player-created charts until someone official endorses them.
A feat for short-hafting reach weapons would be nice, but all arguments about how easy it is to do in real life are overruled by game balance IMO. It is a balancing factor for reach weapons that they can't hit nearby targets. Reach weapons that can hit nearby targets risk being overpowered (see: Spiked Chain).
It's only a balance issue if you can "short-haft" a reach weapon with no penalties. If I have a choice between clobbering an adjacent foe with a greatsword or weakly clobbering him with a penalized glaive, I'll choose the greatsword every time.
Now, the glaive also lets me clobber foes at reach, which is a very nice advantage. It does require me to use two hands, no shield, no TWF, and I'm relatively helpless against adjacent foes unless I have plenty of room to maneuver and can do so without creating a tactical disadvantage. That is too much "balance". In fact, it is so not "balanced" that nobody ever uses reach weapons as their primary method of resolving hostile encounters. Nobody.
That's not "balanced". That's "crippled". Allowing reach weapons to strike adjacent squares merely un-cripples them.
You're right though, it probably would be imbalancing to let them hit adjacent and reach without any penalties. Which is why my housrules for it applied a -2 penalty on the attack roll and limited the damage modifier to 1x STR bonus instead of 1.5x. IMO that created more than enough "balance factor" without leaving the reach weapons crippled.
Further requiring a feat to do this seems, to me, an unneccessary feat "tax" to just be able to use a weapon the way it should be used.
All of which is a big side track.
***********************************************************************
Thread so far:
By RAW, Step Up can only be used when an oppoenent adjacent to you uses a 5-foot Free Step to move away from you. It cannot be used when the opponent is not adjacent (even if you threaten him anyway), nor can it be used when the opponent uses ordinary movement.
Yes, this can almost completely cripple a combatant who is only armed with a reach weapon, because the only way he can ever attack a foe with Step Up is to use normal movement to step back, provoking an AoO every time he moves into position, and also never allowing him to use full iterative attacks. Otherwise, if he tries to 5'-foot Free Step to get into position, his foe will Step Up to an adjacent square and the reach-user will not be able to attack him at all this round. Worst case scenario, a 20th level fighter with a glaive fighting a 20th level fighter with a sword, the swordsman will get 4 iterative attacks and one AoO every round while the glaivesman will only get a single attack each round.
The best solution seems to be that all combatants who optimize with reach weapons must also carry some other weapon, preferably a spiked gauntlet (because they can equip the gauntlet while also having their reach weapon equipped simultaneously), which doesn't let them use their optimized reach weapon againts adjacent foes, but at least they can do something other than being totally helpless.
Another option is to treat the reach weapon as an improvised weapon (since "anything" can be an improvised weapon, it's reasonable to assume that "anything" therefore also includes those things that are actually weapons but which are being used in a fashion for which they were not intended). This would allow a wielder of a reach weapon to improvise a strike at an adjacent square. It's still not optimized, but it's better than being helpless.
That says "10 feet away". It does not say "10 to 15 feet away". Put a blade on a 6-8 foot pole and try to hit someone 15 feet away, it's just not gonna work. I see no simulationist or gamist reason to allow it, and I see no RAW that allows it, so I think I'll ignore the player-created charts until someone official endorses them.
Sigurd pointed out where its officially stated that reach weapons function like this through his wizards link, but from a real life perspective since the hypotenuse of a 5' x 5' square is only about 7' you could threaten into the area of the second diagonal square beyond the first square. Since it is possible for you to extend the weapon past the first square and into the second just based on length of the weapon.
Granted you wouldn't be able to reach through the entire square, but enough to threaten.
Note: that's purely based on weapon length, and that characters with daggers can threaten about 6-8' in pathfinder because they lunge from out of their squares into other squares.
|
|
FWIW, I've never let characters with 10' reach attack onto a square that is 15' away, either.
Hypotenuse, etc. aside, if the character wanted to move there, it's 15' of movement taken up. If they wanted to throw a weapon into that square, it's the second range increment for range increment 10 thrown weapons. Why on Golarion would we start to measure the distance differently for this one thing? Doing things like this is what starts to quickly make the rules break down in a very real way.
Besides, although you say they can threaten the portion of the square closest to them (go Pythagoras!), that's not likely to be the portion of the square that the enemy is actually occupying, now is it? With a dude with a meat-cleaver-on-a-stick juuuuussst out of reach, taking a half step forward would be pretty dumb...
It occurs to me that a Polearm (or other reach weapon) user might have one other recourse to survive a foe with Step Up, if he has a big enough battlefield, and a small enough pride to run like a coward every round.
In a battle with a 20th level fighter with a glaive, and a 20th level fighter with a sword, it might go like this:
Round 1: foes begin 20' apart.
Glaivesman: move 10' and strike swordsman with reach.
Swordsman: 5-Foot Step and full-attack glaivesman.
Round 2:
Glaivesman: 5-Foot Step back to try to attack, but swordsman uses Step Up to remain adjacent. Glaivesman still has a full round, but he cannot attack the adjacent swordsman nor can he move, so he cannot attack this round at all (unless he abandons his glaive to use a different weapon).
Swordsman: full-attacks glaivesman.
Round 3:
repeat round two.
And swordsman wins easily.
But instead, it could go like this:
Round 1: foes begin 20' apart.
Glaivesman: Delay
Swordsman: move 15' to attack glaivesman. This movement provokes an AoO, so both combatants take one shot at eachother.
Glaivesman: Withdraw 20' back and do nothing. This does not provoke.
Round 2: foes begin 20' apart.
Swordsman: move 15' to attack glaivesman. This movement provokes an AoO, so both combatants take one shot at eachother.
Glaivesman: Withdraw 20' back and do nothing. This does not provoke.
Round 3: foes begin 20' apart.
repeat round two.
And this is an even fight. But it involves the glaive wielder giving up ground every round (I used 20 feet, but he would only have to move 10 feet every round - still, that's a whole lot of retreating).
FWIW, I've never let characters with 10' reach attack onto a square that is 15' away, either.
Hypotenuse, etc. aside, if the character wanted to move there, it's 15' of movement taken up. If they wanted to throw a weapon into that square, it's the second range increment for range increment 10 thrown weapons. Why on Golarion would we start to measure the distance differently for this one thing? Doing things like this is what starts to quickly make the rules break down in a very real way.
Besides, although you say they can threaten the portion of the square closest to them (go Pythagoras!), that's not likely to be the portion of the square that the enemy is actually occupying, now is it? With a dude with a meat-cleaver-on-a-stick juuuuussst out of reach, taking a half step forward would be pretty dumb...
Uh.. as for your argument why don't I just stand at the back part of my 5' x 5' square just out of reach of the guy with the sword? Why would I stand close to him. >.>. I think we have to overlook this idea and just accept that if you can hit the square you can hit them (unless they have concealment).
This was changed\clarified in 3.5 RAW.Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons (such as a longspear) threaten more squares than a typical creature. For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.) In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more; see Big and Little Creatures in Combat.
@DM_Blake:
That seems like a sensible strategy for a pole-arm wielder to win using the mechanics of D&D. Real world would be a different beast. Of course you have to remember they might trip/disarm at reach as well.
|
|
My argument is based off of yours. You're saying that the reach fighter can still hit half the square. In your new example, you're (as people often seem to do) extrapolating to a totally unrelated set of circumstances. A swordsman threatens all squares adjacent to him, because they're all equidistant (5' away).
What we're actually talking about, though, is your assertation that someone who can at best threaten half a square should be counted as threatening the whole square. Do you see how comparing that to a question about whether or not we should allow someone who threatens 5' in every direction around him to threaten ALL of an adjacent square (by definition the same thing) is inadequate?
I also wish people would stop quoting and throwing around 3.5 web articles and errata like they mean anything on these forums. Jason had access to all that material when he wrote Pathfinder, and he didn't include it for whatever reason. There is no language in the PFRPGCR that states that 15' away is actually only 10' away, but only when talking about reach weapons, blah blah. It states what it states. Please cite rules - actual rules or errata from the actual game we're actually playing. If you can't do that, then I'm going to go ahead and follow what the rules printed in my book say. I can't believe that anyone would have a problem with me or anyone else doing so.
My argument is based off of yours. You're saying that the reach fighter can still hit half the square. In your new example, you're (as people often seem to do) extrapolating to a totally unrelated set of circumstances. A swordsman threatens all squares adjacent to him, because they're all equidistant (5' away).
Except the fact that you can't possibly hit every inch of the square. I'm asking the same question that you are... assuming you are right, how much % of the square do you need to be able to strike to be considered to threaten? Imagine a halfling warrior with a dagger. He threatens the entire 5' square? Yes? Well, enough of it to hit the opponent. He is kinda short.
I also wish people would stop quoting and throwing around 3.5 web articles and errata like they mean anything on these forums. Jason had access to all that material when he wrote Pathfinder, and he didn't include it for whatever reason. There is no language in the PFRPGCR that states that 15' away is actually only 10' away, but only when talking about reach weapons, blah blah. It states what it states.
The only point I can assert about this is: in the PF core rules the only evidence to your point exists under "Tactical Movement" and is largely concerned with character movement and how and where a character moves. (p.193)
In my mind, this does not say anything about weapons or that 10' of squares magically morphs into 15' because its diagonal during weapon swings. Nor does it state anything of the sort under the reach rules for weapons. This rule applies only if you're moving. But you aren't.
My point:
Threatened Squares (p.180): You threaten all squares into which
you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent
to your space (including diagonally)
[...]
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller
size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can
make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1
square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures
wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a
typical creature.
Reach Weapons (p.141): Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears,
ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is
a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets
that aren’t adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the
wielder’s natural reach...
I see this as literally doubling your reach and threatened area (including diagonals) unless noted otherwise.
In my mind, this does not say anything about weapons or that 10' of squares magically morphs into 15' because its diagonal
You do know that the reason those Tactical Movement rules count the second diagonal as 10' is not random, arbitrary, or magical. Quite the contrary. It's based on absolute matehmatics, simple geometry, and then slightly abstracted to make the game rule easy to use.
To wit:
The length of the hypoteneuse of a right triangle is the square root of the sum of the squares of the lengths of the two sides: h = sqrt(a^2 + b^2)
Like this:
a h
P b
A pole-arm user stands at P. There are orcs at a, b, and h. The orc at a is 5' away, and the orc at b is 5' away. The orc at h is 7.07 feet away: sqrt(5^2 + 5^2) = sqrt(25 + 25) = sqrt(50) = 7.07 feet.
OK, 7.07 feet is closer to 5 feet than it is to 10 feet so we round down and say that the orc at h is 5 feet away from P. Simple game abstraction.
a - h
- - -
P - b
A pole-arm user stands at P. There are orcs at a, b, and h. The orc at a is 10' away, and the orc at b is 10' away (the empty spaces in between are denoted by dashes). The orc at h is 14.14 feet away: sqrt(10^2 + 10^2) = sqrt(100 + 100) = sqrt(200) = 14.04 feet.
OK, 14.04 feet is closer to 15 feet than it is to 10 feet so we round up and say that the orc at h is 15 feet away from P. Simple game abstraction.
This is basic mathematics 101. You know, the universal language. We put math on the sides of space probes that we send out of our galaxy hoping to contact aliens because we know that they won't speak English, but we know that they will understand the universal language of mathematics.
So we don't need to worry about whether "10' of squares magically morphs into 15' because its diagonal".
There is:
no magic
no morphing
no mystery
Just math.
Brought to you by the letter M.
@ DM_Blake
Then I have a question for you good sir. Then in this scenario of
Q[][]H
A[][][]
[][][][]
P[]B[]
When H orc moves from his current position, to the diagonal between A & B, do you (DM_Blake) allow P to take an AoO? (Even though P doesn't threaten either of the squares H is moving through) I am just wondering, because I do like to work with RAW... (if you add a houserule or two, where do you stop adding them, and then aren't you just playing a different game?) but in RAW for a GRW to have a gaping hole in the AoO circle just bothers me a little, although I definitely agree mathematically the reach makes perfect sense RAW...darn you tricky letter M. :-)
Your point is a very valid one. Using squares on a battlemat creates strangeness like you described.
Note that I edited your diagram and added another orc at Q. Note that this orc could also avoid an AoO from P by moving 5' to the east, then 5' diagonally southeast, then 10' diagonally southwest to get adjacent to P (that last step is identical to the last step that H would have used moving in a straight line to P).
Awkward, isn't it?
In this case, you can do one of several things:
1. Play it by RAW Squares: Moving from the unthreatened 15' square to the unthreatened 5' square doesn't provoke since the orc never leaves a threatened square. Silly, gamist, but RAW.
2. Play your reach weapon to sometimes be 15' long: Allow the reach weapon to hit the four corners even though they are 15' away, but then make sure not to allow it to hit any other squares that are 15' away. Silly, gamist, but it plugs those holes.
3. Play it by RAI squares: The reach of that polearm really covers a doughnut shaped ring around P, and even though RAW squares have 4 holes in that ring, RAI tells us that the ring is a solid 360 degrees around P. So even though a path via squares can be found that avoids provoking, we know that these orcs really do have some point in their path where they are 10' away before they move to an adjacent space, so they should provoke.
4. Don't use squares. Get a whiteboard and use rulers and tape measures to move everyone. Then no matter where you place a, b, h, and q (outside of 10' away), there is no direct path from where they begin their moves to where they end up adjacent to P without passing through a point at which they are 10' away and provoke an AoO by movnig closer. Much better simulation, but fairly tedious in practice.
Me, I like option 3. I would simply tell any player trying to use an exploit like this to get real. Literally real. I don't allow gamist exploits at my table to work around inconvenient rules.