| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I've been working on a halfling outrider build for a PFS game and was wondering. While I am mounted, is my mount considered adjacent to me? I've read conflicting posts others have posted previously on the topic but nothing thats definitive. Does anyone know?
Matt
I've been working on a halfling outrider build for a PFS game and was wondering. While I am mounted, is my mount considered adjacent to me? I've read conflicting posts others have posted previously on the topic but nothing thats definitive. Does anyone know?
Matt
you are assumed to be in the same square(s) as your mount. (square in your case)
That's probably close enough to work as adjacent for most feats, despite what an insane rules lawyer might tell you.
Why do you need to know?
For my PFS characters I like to have all my possible rules problems pre-clarified and my sources on hand. I hate springing things on DM's. I was planning on using a number of teamwork feats that allow adjacent positioning to gain bonuses for my mount and me.
Thanks for the help by the way.
Matt
|
This same question came up in my game last night, thought probably not for the same reason. My barbarian player wondered if he could cleave the gnoll riding the hyenadon. I allowed it, it didn't make much sense to me if he couldn't. I figured that since they shared the same space they'd have to be adjacent to one another, any other ruling would have made no sense to me.
You could say that since a rider is atop his mount (typically), he is adjacent in the square above the square(s) the mount occupies.
That is just off the top of my head though, so someone who thinks it through might find any number of problems that make that ruling infeasible.
You could say that since a rider is atop his mount (typically), he is adjacent in the square above the square(s) the mount occupies.
That is just off the top of my head though, so someone who thinks it through might find any number of problems that make that ruling infeasible.
Makes sense to me. The world is 3 dimensional so really it could be divided into 5ft cubes of occupation.
I've always interpreted 'adjacent' to mean 'within reach of'. So, for a medium character, that's within 5 feet. So a Mount would certainly be adjacent. This also makes it clearer for Large and Huge characters, after all, to a Giant a five foot gap between him and the next guy over is adjacent, and even more so for two ancient dragons 10 feet apart.
EDIT: This also has the added benefit of making it hard for tiny and smaller creatures to reach 5 times their size to the right for making adjacent attacks. :) Basically they have to be in the same 5 ft square to be considered adjacent.
Does anyone know?Adjacent? No
But you do share the same space.
How is he not?
ad·ja·cent/əˈjāsənt/Adjective
1. Next to or adjoining something else: "adjacent rooms".
2. (of angles) Having a common vertex and a common side.a : not distant : nearby <the city and adjacent suburbs> b : having a common endpoint or border <adjacent lots> <adjacent sides of a triangle> c : immediately preceding or following
2of two angles : having the vertex and one side in common
Since there isn't an in game definition of the word adjacent then we use common parlance -- and as such he is adjacent to the mount.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
How is he not?
Since there isn't an in game definition of the word adjacent then we use common parlance -- and as such he is adjacent to the mount.
So it comes down to "Ask your DM" because PHB p202 says:
"For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat."You can't be adjacent to something if it is inside you. If you are sharing your mount's space, then there is no part you are adjacent to your mount.
How is he not?
Since there isn't an in game definition of the word adjacent then we use common parlance -- and as such he is adjacent to the mount.So it comes down to "Ask your DM" because PHB p202 says:
"For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat."You can't be adjacent to something if it is inside you. If you are sharing your mount's space, then there is no part you are adjacent to your mount.
You do occupy your mounts square, one of them.
In case you hadn't noticed, a horse is a large creature, and he occupies more than one space. Therefore, you are not only in his space, but also adjacent to the other spaces he occupies, if that makes you feel better.
Note that your interpretation that occupying the same space does not make you adjacent has the lunacy that two fairies (tiny) are NEVER adjacent to each other when they stand shoulder to shoulder, since they are in the same square.
Any creature occuping your space with you should also count as adjacent, or it breaks the system for creatures that are smaller than small.
|
I've been working on a halfling outrider build for a PFS game and was wondering. While I am mounted, is my mount considered adjacent to me? I've read conflicting posts others have posted previously on the topic but nothing thats definitive. Does anyone know?
Matt
You are in the same square(s) as the mount while mounted.
When you dismount you dismount into one of their square(s) and move from there. Many people will let you dismount to adjacent squares, but that is not RAW and can be abused (ever so slightly).
-James
Where does it say that you have to dismount in your mount's squares?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You do occupy your mounts square, one of them.
breaks the system for creatures that are smaller than small.
Look, I appreciate the "lunacy" of my interpretation. But my interpretation has been what I've been told (back in WotC days) was official interpretation. Paizo may differ.
The "you share all squares" interpretation is intended to simplify one aspect of sharing the space with your mount that is evidently more of an issue to some. Which square are you in for the purpose of attacking foes? All of them. If you share all squares then you are adjacent to all opponents of your mount and can then attack directly to all squares without having to 5 ft step on your mount's back from one side to another.
Pick your poison.
As for your "break system for tiny", it is already broken to hell. There is never an adjacent target for tiny. You can't flank (ever) even with a reach weapon anymore. So your point is moot, since they can't every normally have anyone adjacent.
You do occupy your mounts square, one of them.
breaks the system for creatures that are smaller than small.
Look, I appreciate the "lunacy" of my interpretation. But my interpretation has been what I've been told (back in WotC days) was official interpretation. Paizo may differ.
The "you share all squares" interpretation is intended to simplify one aspect of sharing the space with your mount that is evidently more of an issue to some. Which square are you in for the purpose of attacking foes? All of them. If you share all squares then you are adjacent to all opponents of your mount and can then attack directly to all squares without having to 5 ft step on your mount's back from one side to another.
Pick your poison.
As for your "break system for tiny", it is already broken to hell. There is never an adjacent target for tiny. You can't flank (ever) even with a reach weapon anymore. So your point is moot, since they can't every normally have anyone adjacent.
Hmm,
Ok, I'll grant you the system is borked. :) My personal GM ruling is that if it is within reach, it is adjacent. Add the 'you occupy the same space as your mount' and the system actually works pretty well. Your mount is within your reach (since it's in the same space), and if you have a reach weapon on the horse, you're good. A tiny creature with a reach weapon can hit the next square over, and has an adjacent, etc.It has an added benefit of having everything defined in system (reach, size, etc), unlike now where adjacent is a nebulous undefined situation.
could he also "lean back" to be in a rear square, and therefore be 10 ft away from the square right in front of the Large mount?
No. He is in ALL squares of his mount, not in ANY square of his mount. The lance is a reach weapon and he cannot attack adjacent squares with it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
could he also "lean back" to be in a rear square, and therefore be 10 ft away from the square right in front of the Large mount?No. He is in ALL squares of his mount, not in ANY square of his mount. The lance is a reach weapon and he cannot attack adjacent squares with it.
Actually since he occupies all of them then he acts like a large creature and can pick any of them to make an attack from meaning he can attack any of the adjacent squares.
Since there isn't an in game definition of the word adjacent
Incorrect. There is. Anything within 5 feet is considered adjacent.
Actually since he occupies all of them then he acts like a large creature and can pick any of them to make an attack from meaning he can attack any of the adjacent squares.
Also incorrect. "Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can't strike at their natural reach or less"; same link as above.
Since there isn't an in game definition of the word adjacentIncorrect. There is. Anything within 5 feet is considered adjacent.
Actually since he occupies all of them then he acts like a large creature and can pick any of them to make an attack from meaning he can attack any of the adjacent squares.Also incorrect. "Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can't strike at their natural reach or less"; same link as above.
Ok, anything within 5 feet is considered adjacent, which would include the horse you are riding on (it's within 5 feet).
Note that on the large creatures and reach, it only applies to using weapons. So the dragon used in the post above could attack less than his 10 feet of reach, provided he didn't use a weapon to gain 5 feet of reach. However, a rider with a lance could attack at less than his 10 feet of reach, provided he attacked using a different method than the lance (such as kicking), or used Handle Animal to make his horse attack (who still threatens out to 5 feet).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The reason I have the question is that when targeting a Large creature, you can aim at whatever square gives you the best shot. So I wonder if the Large creature can also pick its ideal square from which to attack you...and I believe it can...but how does that translate to a Medium rider that shares its squares with the Large mount?
This is definitely an "Ask your DM" question since I'm sure it isn't directly addressed in the rules. The defining question is which one the DM uses:
1) I'm a Medium but I occupy 4 squares as "one" square, so I must choose the closest square to my target to attack "from"2) I'm a Medium but I occupy 4 squares as separate squares, so I may choose any to attack "from".
Once your DM answers that question, the rules fall into place:
1) You can attack 10' from the Mount but not adjacent squares to the mount.
2) You can attack adjacent squares to the Mount and all squares 10' away.
If you pick the simplest answer, then the DM would choose option 1. It is the most like normal.
Ok, anything within 5 feet is considered adjacent, which would include the horse you are riding on (it's within 5 feet).
I Stand corrected, with an ingame definition of adjacent I will agree a mount is adjacent.
PHB p182 is where it is in the books.
Ok, anything within 5 feet is considered adjacent, which would include the horse you are riding on (it's within 5 feet).I Stand corrected, with an ingame definition of adjacent I will agree a mount is adjacent.
PHB p182 is where it is in the books.
Yep, nice to have. I don't think it was in 3.5. However, I think I'll continue to use my own definition with a slight modification in my own games.
Adjacent : Anything within your reach is considered adjacent. If your reach is less than 5 feet, anything within 5 feet is considered adjacent.
Frankly, I just see this line of frost giants in my head, and then not standing bunched up against each other, but still able to reach out and apply touch spells, give potions, etc.
Since there isn't an in game definition of the word adjacentIncorrect. There is. Anything within 5 feet is considered adjacent.
Actually since he occupies all of them then he acts like a large creature and can pick any of them to make an attack from meaning he can attack any of the adjacent squares.Also incorrect. "Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can't strike at their natural reach or less"; same link as above.
You are correct I was incorrectly remembering from the cover section where it says a creature can pick the square that he attacks from -- this is correct but only applies for cover.
In case it wasn't clear - and not to say you can't change the rules for your game - I think the given definition for "adjacent" would still allow your frost giants to do these things. They have a reach of 10 ft, so they can apply touch spells to creatures that are 10 ft away. Even under the real rules, they don't need to be adjacent to do this.
Oh, I know. That's just not me being clear. I figure if they can reach out to give touch spells, hand over potions, etc, then they count as adjacent, and thus things like teamwork feats and such should also get the same benefit. That's all. Most systems don't take size into account very well. For example, a cloud giant has a speed of of 50 feet, a fire giant a speed of 40 feet. That's great, exactly what you'd expect right? A really tall guy has long legs and he can cover more ground with the same amount of effort (if you don't believe this, watch a short person (say 5 feet) walk next to a really tall person (say 6 foot 4). The 5 foot person will need to take about 5 steps for every 3 the tall person takes.
Where PF breaks down is with enlarge. If you gain a size category, you really should gain +25% movement. Same if you reduce, you should lose 25% of your movement (your legs are shorter), that's the whole reason halflings and dwarves and gnomes are at 20ft base. If you enlarge a halfling to medium size, he's still 20 feet of movement, while a human reduced to the same size as a halfling is at 30 feet still.
EDIT: Make that multiply by 150% for enlarge, and multiply by 2/3rds for reduce, so the numbers work out correctly between 20/30 foot speeds.