Reach Weapon Versus an Adjacent Huge Enemy


Rules Questions

101 to 118 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Where is this new round of FAQ? It wasn't with the main book faq.

Actually,

Yes it was.

Here is a link to the page.

Look under 'Gear and Magic Items'. Yes, I know, not the best place, but it's there.


I remember a number of years back, I was still haunting the WoTC boards, a similar question came up. I think it had to do with a spider-climbing character hanging from the ceiling, while somebody on the ground had a reach weapon. The height of the ceiling was known.

In our game, we DO use 3D measurement. That's because we don't use a grid. We use fully flocked terrains, for both interiors and exterior settings. That means when there are questions about measurement, that cannot be settled by base size or simple eyeballing, they are settled by a ruler or tape measure.

From there, it is a simple move to measuring diagonals in the air, from one elevation to another, etc. The game is a lot more interesting and fun this way, IMO.

For some reason, this ruffles a lot of feathers (it produced a good deal of hair pulling on the Wizards boards back then). I have no idea why anybody would be upset about this. It's just another one of those good-for-me/bad-for-you things. The world won't end if some people play this way.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
You threaten squares. You attack creatures.

Correct, however, since a creature of large or larger size takes up more than one square rules change.

If a large creature has 3 squares in cover and one outside, you can aim at that square and not give the creature any cover bonus.

The same goes for concealement.

Thus, attacking this one square is the same as "attack"ing the creature.


Quote:
If a large creature has 3 squares in cover and one outside, you can aim at that square and not give the creature any cover bonus.

Again, please support this with rules. The diagram says the exact opposite


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ahem.. the rules' complexity comes out in the rules text, not the diagram (which is a very basic scenario good for general reference). But, I will be happy to provide RAW evidence if you like.

PRD: Combat: Cover wrote:


Big Creatures and Cover

Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.

This is what you're looking for, see the final sentence. Choose any square.

PRD: Combat: Concealment wrote:


To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you, use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks.

If the ogre's leg is sticking out of the fog cloud, chop his leg. Note: his space is techically 4 spaces.

Hope that helps!


Stynkk wrote:

Ahem.. the rules' complexity comes out in the rules text, not the diagram (which is a very basic scenario good for general reference). But, I will be happy to provide RAW evidence if you like.

PRD: Combat: Cover wrote:


Big Creatures and Cover

Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.[/b]

This is what you're looking for, see the final sentence. Choose any square.

That paragraph applies specifically against MELEE attacks. This came up for a ranged weapon as a question. ALso note that reach weapons determine cover as if they were ranged weapons, not melee weapons, so that statement doesn't help our would be pole armer.

The hill you have to climb to reach your conclusion is to prove that the basic unit of attack is the square, rather than the creature. While you can aim your attack at a square, you still have to hit the creature within it. For missle weapons Cover is determined by the whole creature, not its square. The rules are written with the assumption that you will be attacking a creature.

You're arguing that there is precedent for attacking squares rather than creatures. I'm not denying there are, but that's insufficient to prove your case. You need to somehow get to the conclusion that squares are what matter for determining what is adjacent. To do that you're trying to argue that you ONLY attack squares, which is simply untrue.


hmm... that is a good question OP. Well, considering you can ignore the penalty to firing into melee by targeting a portion of a larger creature (10ft away from an ally minimum), I don't see why a reach weapon can't do the same. *shrug*


BigNorseWolf wrote:
You're arguing that there is precedent for attacking squares rather than creatures. I'm not denying there are, but that's insufficient to prove your case. You need to somehow get to the conclusion that squares are what matter for determining what is adjacent. To do that you're trying to argue that you ONLY attack squares, which is simply untrue.

No, I'm arguing you CAN choose to attack squares with a reach weapon (specifically with Large Creatures) if the circumstances dictate.

Note: Concealment (and Reach Weapons) does not have the wording of cover (and reach weapons) for a reason I do not know.


Stynkk wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You're arguing that there is precedent for attacking squares rather than creatures. I'm not denying there are, but that's insufficient to prove your case. You need to somehow get to the conclusion that squares are what matter for determining what is adjacent. To do that you're trying to argue that you ONLY attack squares, which is simply untrue.

No, I'm arguing you CAN choose to attack squares with a reach weapon (specifically with Large Creatures) if the circumstances dictate.

Note: Concealment (and Reach Weapons) does not have the wording of cover (and reach weapons) for a reason I do not know.

Its a simple reason: the rules assume that the default is that you are attacking a creature, not a square.

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. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

The reach weapon rules check to see if the CREATURE is in an adjacent square. If they are then you can't attack them. What you and others are attempting to do with the concealment and cover rules is to completely eliminate the idea of a creature as an entity and instead break them down into nothing more than a collection of squares.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


80 other posts I've seen by the developers have said the opposite: A trip weapon is supposed to actually be worth the reduced damage these weapons do.

Being devs has certainly never stopped them from contradicting themselves, each other, or the rules.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Stynkk wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You're arguing that there is precedent for attacking squares rather than creatures. I'm not denying there are, but that's insufficient to prove your case. You need to somehow get to the conclusion that squares are what matter for determining what is adjacent. To do that you're trying to argue that you ONLY attack squares, which is simply untrue.

No, I'm arguing you CAN choose to attack squares with a reach weapon (specifically with Large Creatures) if the circumstances dictate.

Note: Concealment (and Reach Weapons) does not have the wording of cover (and reach weapons) for a reason I do not know.

Its a simple reason: the rules assume that the default is that you are attacking a creature, not a square.

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. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

The reach weapon rules check to see if the CREATURE is in an adjacent square. If they are then you can't attack them. What you and others are attempting to do with the concealment and cover rules is to completely eliminate the idea of a creature as an entity and instead break them down into nothing more than a collection of squares.

while this is true large creatures have reach naturally and can attack adjacent creatures and if they pick up a reach weapon then while they lose the ability to attack adjacent creatures nothing stops them from attacking down with it onto smaller creatures or attacking up to get flying or hanging creatures

as a martial artist using a pole arm to attack up is how some of them were designed to be used and i can get the same power attacking up with a spear as i do when attacking on a level or angled plane

now while large creatures may "occupy" multiple squares they don't take up the entire space of all those squares unless its an ooze or other strange aberration but it all comes down to GM preference and interpretation


"now while large creatures may "occupy" multiple squares they don't take up the entire space of all those squares"

As far as the game is concerned, everyone is made out of 5x5 blocks (except for creatures smaller than Small). If this wasn't the case, you would have to define far more specifically where one has to be to hit a Large or Larger creatures.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

That paragraph applies specifically against MELEE attacks. This came up for a ranged weapon as a question. ALso note that reach weapons determine cover as if they were ranged weapons, not melee weapons, so that statement doesn't help our would be pole armer.

Now you're just being pedantic. Why wouldn't it also apply to ranged attacks?

I dunno that a person could use a reach weapon against an adjacent huge creature if the are positioned correctly, but they could most certainly target a part of a big creature that isn't behind cover or concealment (regardless of whether they are using melee, ranged, or reach attacks).


Ravingdork wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

That paragraph applies specifically against MELEE attacks. This came up for a ranged weapon as a question. ALso note that reach weapons determine cover as if they were ranged weapons, not melee weapons, so that statement doesn't help our would be pole armer.

Now you're just being pedantic. Why wouldn't it also apply to ranged attacks?

YOU are accusing ME of being pedantic?

The paragraph went through the trouble of saying melee attacks several times. There's no reason, if the intent was to apply it to all attacks, to specifically go out of the way to limit it to melee attacks. Why on earth would you translate "melee attacks" as "all attacks" ?

Secondly http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#cover

The sorcerer attacks the ogre but the ogre has partial cover. This is completely consistent with my reading of the rules that you need to consider the entire creature for cover. If the sorcerer could consider only 1 square of the ogre to attack and ignore the rest there would be no cover at all.

Partial Cover: If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion.

I'm curious how partial cover would even exist on the "there are no creatures there are only squares" hypothesis.

Grand Lodge

Quote:

Concealment

To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#cover
#2: The rogue is adjacent to the ogre, but lines from the corners of her square to the corners of the ogre's square cross through a wall. The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, the rogue does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon).

Is there an actual ruling for the bolded part? I can't find it anywhere.

edit: wow..sorry about that, I thought it was only a couple weeks old, not a few years and couple weeks old >_<


I see it like this
What if it was a med creature on a 10 foot ledge would you still consider adjacent?
there for would would you be able to hit it 10 feet back and 10 feet up?

then answer is no
therefor adjacent should mean touching the edge of the square you occupy

therefore if you attacked the head of some thing the square your attacking is not adjacent to yours

again if you can hit a bird flying over your head your telling me that you count not hit a guy on stilts or then just a giant? how could you use a pole arm to attack people on wall the very reason it was made?

to word differently cause I am bad at explaining. what is the difference between a guard on top of wall and giant standing behind a price of paper with a wall drawn on it? nothing you would make the same attack even if the giants feet are adjacent to you


claudekennilol wrote:
Quote:

Concealment

To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#cover
#2: The rogue is adjacent to the ogre, but lines from the corners of her square to the corners of the ogre's square cross through a wall. The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, the rogue does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon).

Is there an actual ruling for the bolded part? I can't find it anywhere.

edit: wow..sorry about that, I thought it was only a couple weeks old, not a few years and couple weeks old >_<

That text comes directly from this page, in the subtext beneath the diagram.

Diagram subtext wrote:
#2: The rogue is adjacent to the ogre, but lines from the corners of her square to the corners of the ogre's square cross through a wall. The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, the rogue does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon).

The rule to which that bit of subtext is refering can be found in the second paragraph of the Cover section.

Cover wrote:
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Grand Lodge

Honorable Goblin wrote:


That text comes directly from this page, in the subtext beneath the diagram.

Diagram subtext wrote:
#2: The rogue is adjacent to the ogre, but lines from the corners of her square to the corners of the ogre's square cross through a wall. The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, the rogue does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon).
The rule to which that bit of subtext is refering can be found in the second paragraph of the Cover section.

Right, that's the part I found, quoted, and linked ;).

Honorable Goblin wrote:


Cover wrote:
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Thanks, that's the part I couldn't find.

101 to 118 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Reach Weapon Versus an Adjacent Huge Enemy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.