| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I would say yes, but apply Soft Cover penalties... (for attacking their rearward squares thru their frontward ones)
*IF* a `long` creature didn`t occupy a full cube, but just the lower half, that would allow an adjacent `tall` opponent to have free Line of Sight to it`s rearward half... Although such a detail about the vertical space occupancy of `low` creatures `(vs. `tall`) doesn`t seem to actually appear anywhere in PRPG (or 3.5 SRD) - The rules regrettably tend to forget that the game is operating in 3-d space in several other places as well, pretending that 2D terminology is sufficient even when it isn`t. ...If one DOESN`T rule for different vertical cube occupancy, you`re left with the result that `tall` creatures aren`t actually taller for the core spatial mechanic of the game (5` squares/cubes).
|
If this was 3.5 where you could attach a target in the adjacent square with a penalty when using a reach weapon I would say "No, you should apply the penalty".
I see that in Pathfinder it is not possible to attach a target in a adjacent square with a reach weapon.
So I would say yes, but I would apply a Partial cover modifier (+2 to AC, no Attacks of Opportunity) as you will have to "avoid" the nearest part of the creature to strike with the "business part" of your weapon.
Ach, beated by a faster poster. ;)
Question is WHY reach weapons usually cannot attack adjacent. This is because the enemies weapons can block them effectively, imagine yourself carrying a ladder in a narrow passage. Applying this logic leads to a "no, you have to target the nearest square the enemy is in" (on the other hand, some monster might not have what it takes to hinder you - but that is not a matter of the space they take)
Question is WHY reach weapons usually cannot attack adjacent. This is because the enemies weapons can block them effectively, imagine yourself carrying a ladder in a narrow passage. Applying this logic leads to a "no, you have to target the nearest square the enemy is in" (on the other hand, some monster might not have what it takes to hinder you - but that is not a matter of the space they take)
The blocking and missing is handled by the AC of the creature. The not being able to attack targets who are adjacent is because the pointy end of the weapon doesn't reach that close.
What Quandary and Diego said would work, I think.
The blocking and missing is handled by the AC of the creature.
In my opinion the AC represents the defense against usual attacks - as AC does not represent concealment. Just imagine that you have a polearm (say, a halberd) and I have a dagger since I am some kind of assassin. After attacking you from the dark, I use the narrow passages of the building we´re in to rush you to a wall, rendering you unable to leave your place, attacking with my dagger at close range. You have no chance to attack with your halberd since you can´t swing it - there´s wall behind you and me right before you, swinging it would give me the opportunity to grab it and deal an attack to you you can´t parry since your arms are above at the halberd.
This is well represented by the rule that you can´t attack close with reach weapons. For that swing I described I´d houserule that you can attack close but provoke an AoO doing soThe first RPG I played was The Dark Eye which has special rules about the range of melee weapons - the distance class of the weapon, hand length, usual length and spear length, some weapons have two classes. The space between two people is measured in the same distances and when the length doesn´t correspond with your weapon, direct attacks are penalized, to change the distance you have to roll a succesful attack that does no damage. Are some nice rules for a duel against a spear wielder, however to complex for a fast system like d20 (fights in The Dark Eye need quite some time, one of the reasons why I changed to d20)
In my opinion the AC represents the defense against usual attacks - as AC does not represent concealment. Just imagine that you have a polearm (say, a halberd) and I have a dagger since I am some kind of assassin. After attacking you from the dark, I use the narrow passages of the building we´re in to rush you to a wall, rendering you unable to leave your place, attacking with my dagger at close range. You have no chance to attack with your halberd since you can´t swing it - there´s wall behind you and me right before you, swinging it would give me the opportunity to grab it and deal an attack to you you can´t parry since your arms are above at the halberd.
This is well represented by the rule that you can´t attack close with reach weapons. For that swing I described I´d houserule that you can attack close but provoke an AoO doing so
If the rogue was 10 foot tall, why shouldn't an 8 foot polearm be able to reach the head? Likewise if the creature was a 10 foot long centipede, why couldn't a polearm reach over the creature's head and stab the back half?
If the rogue was 10 foot tall, why shouldn't an 8 foot polearm be able to reach the head?
´Cause you wouldn´t aim for the head... see, what I derived from martial arts is that you want your blows to be fast and straight. The more length your blow has to cover, the more likely that your enemy sees it coming and is able to block or even to block and strike back since your attack exposes you (I mean, that´s what fighting is all about - longsword battle stances for example are centered around being able to hit without letting down your defense)
Now bringing your head out of trouble should be quite easy for a tall creature, it´s just some leaning back. Your far better of attacking it´s groin from the distance your spear provides youBasically, just imagine the following: you have a halberd and are standing in an overfilled train where you can barely even move. Now try a battle stance. (doesn´t even work with a short sword)
Likewise if the creature was a 10 foot long centipede, why couldn't a polearm reach over the creature's head and stab the back half?Yeah, that´s one good example for a monster that hasn´t what it takes to hinder you. On the other hand, it´s still better to attack that thing from far away, it has a poisonous bite and all and if I´d design a large centipede monster, I wouldn´t give it the reach large monsters usually have... but yeah, here I´d houserule that you can attack it on close range with a reach weapon
´Cause you wouldn´t aim for the head... see, what I derived from martial arts is that you want your blows to be fast and straight. The more length your blow has to cover, the more likely that your enemy sees it coming and is able to block or even to block and strike back since your attack exposes you (I mean, that´s what fighting is all about - longsword battle stances for example are centered around being able to hit without letting down your defense)
Now bringing your head out of trouble should be quite easy for a tall creature, it´s just some leaning back. Your far better of attacking it´s groin from the distance your spear provides youBasically, just imagine the following: you have a halberd and are standing in an overfilled train where you can barely even move. Now try a battle stance. (doesn´t even work with a short sword)
"Wouldn't" and "optimal" are not applicable here, we're looking for "can" and "possible". If I have the option to swing at something's head, or drop my weapon and try something I'm not trained for, I'm going for the head.
Yeah, that´s one good example for a monster that hasn´t what it takes to hinder you. On the other hand, it´s still better to attack that thing from far away, it has a poisonous bite and all and if I´d design a large centipede monster, I wouldn´t give it the reach large monsters usually have... but yeah, here I´d houserule that you can attack it on close range with a reach weapon
Again, of course it's better to attack something in the ideal situation, but when that isn't an option, it's nice to know you can still attack.
"Wouldn't" and "optimal" are not applicable here, we're looking for "can" and "possible". If I have the option to swing at something's head, or drop my weapon and try something I'm not trained for, I'm going for the head.
Yeah, that's why I didn't wrote "optimal". You can aim for the head as a soldier can run screaming over the battlefield, shooting in all directions and not taking cover. Ok, that´s not quite the same in terms of safety but by "you wouldn't aim for the head" I mean "it's far to dangerous to try in a real battle", basically it IS something you're not trained for (for good reasons)
(however the situation is hard to imagine and I don't practice actively any form of armed combat like fencing or kendo, I could even imagine that one could develop a battle style specially designed for stabbing the heads of oversized enemies with spears but it would completely ignore the spear's attribute of length)
Again, of course it's better to attack something in the ideal situation, but when that isn't an option, it's nice to know you can still attack.
As I said, the large centipede is a good example for when I'd houserule that it's possible. Unlike the head example, it's a sound strategy
Reach Weapons: 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, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square
When you have and adjacent large creature, is both adajacent and 10" away.
Can I attack this kind of creature or larger, with may reach weapon?????
I never thought about that before. The creature does fill the adjacent and non-adjacent squares. I FAQ'd it. I don't have an answer for this one.
No. if some of the creature is adjacent to you then the creature is adjacent to you.
Seems clear to me, too. When I park my car right next to another it's NOT a few yards away because parts of my car are a few yards away, it's adjacent.
No. if some of the creature is adjacent to you then the creature is adjacent to you.
This is what I'm leaning towards, but it is unclear enough that I too will FAQ it.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The most relevant section of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook, which is on page 141 and already has been quoted, says "A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows it's wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack creatures 15 or 20 feet away but not creatures up to 10 feet away."
There is no exception stated due to the size category of the defender, so there is no exception to the rule...
Unless somewhere else in the PRGCR there is a rule that covers the situation.
---
On page 195, Big and Little Creatures in combat... I'd think this might include something on the subject.
"Large, Huge, Gargantuan, and Colossal Creatures: Very large creatures take up more than 1 square.
"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.
"Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature with greater than normal reach (more than 5 feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it....
Nothing contrary to the previous section there, but the information looks to me like it supports the previous quoted section.
---
Unfortunately, I can't find anything else in the PRGCR or APG to state otherwise.
My final conclusion: If a creature is adjacent, you cannot use a reach weapon to attack it. Everyone stating otherwise are nice people creating a home rule to help the story or help you... I caution you that if you ever go to a table (whether at a convention or gamesday) where these nice people are not the judge or game master, you might just find your character in a situation that could be detrimental to your character's health and your frustration level. If you're playing in home game with one of these nice people as GM, well then, your golden.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Your overthinking this. Its an abstract combat system, don't fiddle with it or look at it too much or it comes down like a house of cards...
Well that sounds delightfully boring :p
No. if some of the creature is adjacent to you then the creature is adjacent to you.
That is how I have always played it, and that does make sense for it to be RAW and RAI.