# Three questions for the Devs... or anyone... mostly the Devs...

### Rules Questions

 51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

StabbittyDoom wrote:

And with the ogre-with-reach scenario you WOULD have to travel through two threatened squares. Just because you're moving into a threatened square doesn't mean that you aren't also passing along a diagonal between corner-adjacent squares (which, by this rule, would cause your source square to be counted as threatened for that movement).

Yeah, but check this out: Go to the ogre diagram. Start in row 1, column 3. Move one square due south. Then move one square southeast. You're now within the ogre's "dead zone," and you've passed through only one threatened square.

Unless you say that the second move (southeast) provokes TWO attacks of opportunity -- one for leaving a threatened square, and one for passing through the diagonal. Which I wouldn't have any objection to, necessarily, but it edges the rule towards more complicated than I would want to bother with.

Michael Gentry wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:

And with the ogre-with-reach scenario you WOULD have to travel through two threatened squares. Just because you're moving into a threatened square doesn't mean that you aren't also passing along a diagonal between corner-adjacent squares (which, by this rule, would cause your source square to be counted as threatened for that movement).

Yeah, but check this out: Go to the ogre diagram. Start in row 1, column 3. Move one square due south. Then move one square southeast. You're now within the ogre's "dead zone," and you've passed through only one threatened square.

Unless you say that the second move (southeast) provokes TWO attacks of opportunity -- one for leaving a threatened square, and one for passing through the diagonal. Which I wouldn't have any objection to, necessarily, but it edges the rule towards more complicated than I would want to bother with.

I would say that it provokes in both of those movements, but since you can't AoO more than once on a single move it doesn't matter except to show that all angles of entry require moving through two (effectively) threatened squares, which is the entire point I was trying to make.

The entire point is to make sure that you have to stop short and 5ft-step in in order to get inside an opponents reach, rather than just running in, and regardless of the "double-threaten" this simple rule seems to accomplish that.

James Jacobs wrote:

I suspect I might have ruled wrong on how reach works, but it makes logical sense to me.

Have a PC charge down a diagonal corridor with a reach weapon. Claim they can never hit with it in those confines?

It doesn't make sense and it a fault of the square based system that treats diagonals different than full faces.

3.5 expressly wrote this out to avoid this annoyance that 3.0 had from some of its more literal readers.

Personally I suggest that you work with hex maps and be done with it, but if you stick with squares then I would allow 2 diagonals to be BOTH 10' and 15' distance as far as being able to reach into that square.

It makes logical sense to me,

James

So, in order to not break verisimilitude, the suggestion is to have one object occupy space in both one place, and another place five feet away at the same time, without splitting in two?

Sorry, James M, don't mean to be snarky toward you specifically, but this helps to illustrate my point that a combat system in the vein of D&D and PFRPG cannot, by it's nature, provide "verisimilitude" that satisfies everyone. I, for example, am dissatisfied with the [insert buzzword meaning 'realisitc' here] inherent in that solution. I want to like it, I really do, but I can't, because it's physically impossible. I think I like Blake's suggestion best out of those proposed so far, if I had to choose one. Just my personal opinion.

james maissen wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

I suspect I might have ruled wrong on how reach works, but it makes logical sense to me.

Have a PC charge down a diagonal corridor with a reach weapon. Claim they can never hit with it in those confines?

It doesn't make sense and it a fault of the square based system that treats diagonals different than full faces.

3.5 expressly wrote this out to avoid this annoyance that 3.0 had from some of its more literal readers.

Personally I suggest that you work with hex maps and be done with it, but if you stick with squares then I would allow 2 diagonals to be BOTH 10' and 15' distance as far as being able to reach into that square.

It makes logical sense to me,

James

Again, 2 squares diagonal only counts as such after you leave the second square, not in regards to reaching the second square. This applies to reach weapons and ranged attacks equally. Look at the damned pictures in the 3.5 DMG. PFRPG didn't explicitly change this (they just seemed to forget to mention it)

Jeremiziah wrote:

So, in order to not break verisimilitude, the suggestion is to have one object occupy space in both one place, and another place five feet away at the same time, without splitting in two?

Sorry, James M, don't mean to be snarky toward you specifically

I don't mind the snarky, but I do mind the obfuscation.

How far away is an adjacent 5' square?

Is it 0'? Then are you saying that everything in that square is 0' away? Your snarky reply would have us believing that everything in that square is at most 2 dimensional!

Sorry but things have depth, and 5' squares do as well. Anything that can reach up to 5' can reach into that adjacent square.

In this case anything that can reach 10 or 15 can reach into the square 2 diagonals away.

Yes 5' squares are bad approximations in many ways. Worst, imho, is that there is a difference in being adjacent relative to a face and adjacent relative to a corner.

Which is why I was posting that hex grids are superior in that respect.

-James

At the risk of blatant thread necromancy I'm reviving this because it is very relevant to a character I'm building - a 10th fighter with a guisarme and Combat Patrol, who may get enlarged every now and then.

James M. has a point, I think, in that adjacent squares are 0-5 feet away, but adjacent diagonals are 0-7 (about) feet away. The second diagonal is about 8-15 feet away. So the 10 foot diagonal "square" is split between the first and second square away. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, you can pass through the second square away without passing through this region, but not if you cross from the second square to the first square.

It really will matter when my char is threatening up to 20 ft away but can still only attack things which are 10 ft away. Also he's a polearm master, so he can shorten his grip if need be...

I really want to play this character, but I don't want the game to be a mess for our GM. Has anyone found the "two corners" ruling to be viable? I mainly need something to convince him one way or the other so we have no ambiguity at the gaming table.

Also, the diagram for the large creature's reach on the preceding page has an issue - it's not large. Should affect which squares are threatened.

Thanks,
Drillboss

Drillboss D wrote:

At the risk of blatant thread necromancy I'm reviving this because it is very relevant to a character I'm building - a 10th fighter with a guisarme and Combat Patrol, who may get enlarged every now and then.

James M. has a point, I think, in that adjacent squares are 0-5 feet away, but adjacent diagonals are 0-7 (about) feet away. The second diagonal is about 8-15 feet away. So the 10 foot diagonal "square" is split between the first and second square away. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, you can pass through the second square away without passing through this region, but not if you cross from the second square to the first square.

It really will matter when my char is threatening up to 20 ft away but can still only attack things which are 10 ft away. Also he's a polearm master, so he can shorten his grip if need be...

I really want to play this character, but I don't want the game to be a mess for our GM. Has anyone found the "two corners" ruling to be viable? I mainly need something to convince him one way or the other so we have no ambiguity at the gaming table.

Also, the diagram for the large creature's reach on the preceding page has an issue - it's not large. Should affect which squares are threatened.

Thanks,
Drillboss

To be honest, my group just switched to hexes.

My players are new and at one point we were running a pretty simple battle in Kingmaker and I didn't want to flip over the mat from the hex "Exploration" view to the other side 'cause there was a lot of stuff sitting on the mat, so I just ran it on hex for that one fight. They liked the (relative) simplicity and asked that we switch to hex.

How is the balance on hex?

delabarre wrote:
Hexcaliber wrote:
In my home games we've removed the diagonal rule. If I could get away with it I'd use my warhammer measuring sticks and just go from there.
I keep a wee little tape measure in my gaming box, and it is authoritative for determining long movement distances, weapon range mods, spells in/not in range, etc, or anything further than about 6 inches.

I love the measuring tape for line spells. Just run them over the top and anyone who is on the line is hit. I have also gone gridless in the past and it works fairly well.

Drillboss D wrote:
How is the balance on hex?

Well we JUST switched so I'll let you know after we've done more than a single-digit number of fights on it. So far the only thing that's changed is that people don't have to count diagonals.

Drillboss D wrote:
How is the balance on hex?

You can generally ignore corners but you don't have perpendicular straight lines like you do with grids.

I like hexes but usually use grids since thats what the maps I use have.

0gre wrote:
Drillboss D wrote:
How is the balance on hex?

You can generally ignore corners but you don't have perpendicular straight lines like you do with grids.

I like hexes but usually use grids since thats what the maps I use have.

The "maps" issue hasn't come up yet primarily thanks to the open nature of Kingmaker (where the squares are often just as bad as the hexes). It was actually one of the issues that kept me from trying to convince my old group to switch. I figure that since my players requested it this time I'll just tough it out a bit and see how it works out.

I can always say "It has to be obviously more than a half hex to count as an open spot" and "If it doesn't count, but it has *some* room you can stand there but be squeezing if there isn't an adjacent open hex."

We'll see.

That would raise the issue, then, of creatures larger than medium, although I have an idea about how that would look.

Even if the DM goes for it, though, the group probably won't, plus we have a whole lot of grid paper that we need a use for.

So which ruling are most people going with? It seems like the 3.5 one? Our group oscillates between different systems, including 4e (with some houserules, it has a place), so that seems like an okay solution for a medium creature with reach. But what about extended reach?

The apg has a fighter archetype that grants a short haft-like ability. Just throwing that out there for whatever relevance it has.

Drillboss D wrote:
How is the balance on hex?

Hex is very nice and actually better in that you don't have different forms of being adjacent to an enemy.

Consider that with squares you can flank an enemy with 2 PCs and depending on 'how they are facing them' the enemy can withdraw/5' step to an unthreatened square.

-James

Jeremiziah wrote:
The apg has a fighter archetype that grants a short haft-like ability. Just throwing that out there for whatever relevance it has.

Indeed, my dwarf fighter, and the reason I brought this back up, is a Polearm Master. Trying to help the DM get a good way to rule it before we play.

Specifically, a dwarf Polearm Master with Combat patrol, for a total of 4 reach modes, and that's without the potential for enlarge person.

Scipion del Ferro wrote:

I just had this issue come up and from what I could tell here's what I figured out.

1 square = 5ft

If you put two squares diagonally that's 10ft. (not mathematically but still screw math here)

If you move the movement is NOT measured in feet. It is measured in squares. The first square diagonally consumes one square of movement. The second one consumes two. The third consumes another one square of movement.

I think this distinction between movement squares and actual distance is important. Because reach weapons don't say "You can only hit creatures two squares away." They say 10ft.

Otherwise a caster or archer rarely has to worry about an enemy getting close to them. Unless they are cornered there would always be a square within 5ft step of safety free of an AoO. Or multiple opponents or 15ft reach of course.

Two squares put together diagonally is not 10ft.

If you have a five foot by five foot square, the diagonal line from one corner to another will measure 7.5ft in length. So, two 5x5 squares placed diagonally, will have a total length of 15ft. They basically give you the first square at a discounted movement, 5ft instead of 7.5ft. And then fill in the gap in the second square, charging you the other 10ft.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.

For anyone coming back to this post (Google favoured school is necromancy), don't lose track of this new FAQ, clarifying reach weapons threaten 10' second diagonal.

No, this only clarifies reach for creatures, not weapons.

Reach is reach whether for creatures or weapons. You threaten the diagonal, but cannot attack into it.

dragonhunterq wrote:

Reach is reach whether for creatures or weapons. You threaten the diagonal, but cannot attack into it.

Seriously? What in the CRB makes you think that threatening into a square and being able to make a melee attack into a square aren't the same thing? I thought they were the same thing so if you've got something that shows otherwise please share it.

James Jacobs wrote:
Francis Kunkel wrote:
1. Can you or can you not attack diagonally at a distance of 2x squares (15'=10' exception) with a reach weapon?
Nope. A reach weapon gives a specific extension to your reach. When you count out squares, since every other square is doubled when you count diagonally, that means that there'll be corners where you can't reach.

Are you out of your mind? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't care what fancy title you have I'm going to ignore all your posts now. Forever.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Francis Kunkel wrote:
1. Can you or can you not attack diagonally at a distance of 2x squares (15'=10' exception) with a reach weapon?
Nope. A reach weapon gives a specific extension to your reach. When you count out squares, since every other square is doubled when you count diagonally, that means that there'll be corners where you can't reach.

Are you out of your mind? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't care what fancy title you have I'm going to ignore all your posts now. Forever.

You do realize his post is like 5 years old, and things have changed a lot since then?

You should probably calm down a little.

Also, that was how it worked for a really long time (because Pathfinder lacked the clarifing text that D&D 3.5 added to make reach weapons hit those spaces).

During the time he was correct.

Rules have changed since then.

Calm yourself.

dragonhunterq wrote:

Reach is reach whether for creatures or weapons. You threaten the diagonal, but cannot attack into it.

Hmm! on reflection I may have been influenced by others in my view on this. As I understood it the rules are clear that if you can attack a square you threaten it, but that does not necessarily work in reverse i.e. if you threaten a square you can aren't necessarily able to attack into it. I have looked into this anew and I am no longer convinced of the strength of that argument.

 51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>