| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Here is the reach graph for a Medium creature.
Now what does it look like when you have a the Lunge Feat?
Here is the reach graph for a Medium creature.
Now what does it look like when you have a the Lunge Feat?
Now this is going to start some kind of war :)
This depends on how you treat reach weapons. I personally treat them as the graph shows above for my games. However, some GMs/players/etc think that reach weapons would not reach the corners of that diagram.
Example 1 (illustrated in the link above):
R R R R R
R X X X R
R X P X R
R X X X R
R R R R R
Example 2 (alternate theory of Reach Weapons):
X R R R X
R X X X R
R X P X R
R X X X R
X R R R X
R = Reach Attack Area
X = Not attackable Area
P = Player
* Assume each letter is a 5 ft square on a grid
----------------------
Ok, with that out of the way... if you use Example 1, then lunge would look like this:
Using Method 1 and Lunge:
L L L L L L L
L R R R R R L
L R X X X R L
L R X P X R L
L R X X X R L
L R R R R R L
L L L L L L L
L = Lunging Reach Area
R = Normal Reach Attack Area
X = Not attackable Area
P = Player
* Assume each letter is a 5 ft square on a grid
If you assume Method 2:
X L L L L L X
L L R R R L L
L R X X X R L
L R X P X R L
L R X X X R L
L L R R R L L
X L L L L L X
The group I run and the groups I play in all count corners for reach and for ranged weapons.
|
If you look it up, Method 1 is the official area of effect for reach weapons.
Now, I would beg to differ on the area actually covered by reach with lunge:
X L L L L L X
L R R R R R L
L R X X X R L
L R X P X R L
L R X X X R L
L R R R R R L
X L L L L L X
L = Lunging Reach Area
R = Normal Reach Attack Area
X = Not attackable Area
P = Player
* Assume each letter is a 5 ft square on a grid
Remember that diagonals count as 5'/10', so that corner coverage is, sort of, only half of the double diagonal square's area, and that the square is 15' away, and therefore lunge just moves the entirety of those squares into the reach weapon's area of effect.
Remember that diagonals count as 5'/10', so that corner coverage is, sort of, only half of the double diagonal square's area, and that the square is 15' away, and therefore lunge just moves the entirety of those squares into the reach weapon's area of effect.
This is the argument for Method 2. Actually, if you use the rules in the way you describe that diagonals are measured as 5' then 10' then 5' then 10' and so on. Which is what you describe, but your measurements are a bit off.
A medium sized reach weapon - which only reaches 10' - would not be able to reach the entirety of the second diagonal square (as that would be 15' of measurement: adjacent diagonal is 5' the next diagonal would be an additional 10'), which is why some folks use Method 2.
|
|
Remember that diagonals count as 5'/10', so that corner coverage is, sort of, only half of the double diagonal square's area, and that the square is 15' away, and therefore lunge just moves the entirety of those squares into the reach weapon's area of effect.This is the argument for Method 2. Actually, you will see that if you use the rules in the way you describe that diagonals are measured as 5' then 10' then 5' then 10' and so on.
So that a reach weapon which only reaches 10' would not be able to reach the entirety of the second diagonal square (as that would be 15' of measurement), which is why some folks use Method 2.
Huh?
Official rules are that the reach weapon covers the corners, too.
I was just trying to explain why the reach/lunge combo would not, IMO, add additional target areas at the corners, since that is already 15' to reach the farther edge of those squares to begin with.
Basically, unless I am misremembering, Lunge adds 5' to your reach when attacking, so a reach weapon which has a reach of 10' now has a reach of 15', so that third diagonal square would remain out of reach even with lunge.
Now, lunge with a whip is a different story, but that is not the current question...
Reach weapon, Lunge feat, Enlarge Person spell, all together. Now that gives some coverage area...
Ah, I see what you're saying, sorry about that. Again, I'm not a proponent for Method 2, but they do exist. The written rules about the range of reach weapons are pretty nebulous (especially since the charg Hamor showed above is "unofficial content").
What it comes down to is, how would you rule a creature with a 15foot reach (or a whip)?
So the left one here is what is correct?
Reach + Lunge for a Medium Creature
Correct?
That's my interpretation, yes.
So the left one here is what is correct?
You have my vote sir. Although some DM's may interpret the one on the right :).
That's my interpretation, yes.So the left one here is what is correct?
Reach + Lunge for a Medium Creature
Correct?
The left one is the way I have always done it also. It is something that needs to be cleared up though since specific wording was not copy-pasted over into PF that made it possible.
I am a proponent of reach being able to threaten the diagonals (Method 1). I even made up my own little diagram with medium and large creatures, regular and reach weapons. The issue came up at PaizoCon so I sauntered over to Jason Bulmahn to get him to sign off on it.
He was aware of the issue and deferred to each GM's interpretation. When I pressed him for how he GM's it, he said that you don't threaten the second diagonal (15'), but that you would get an attack of opportunity when an enemy moves from the second diagonal (15') to the adjacent diagonal (5') because they passed through your 10' reach. I asked him to confirm that you don't threaten the square, but you can make attacks of opportunity against enemies that leave the square? He said yes - and I almost cried.
From that day forward, I've stopped trying to get 'official' answers and just check with my GM beforehand. I see a questionnaire in my future where the GM denotes how each gray area is ruled. :(
|
|
I am a proponent of reach being able to threaten the diagonals (Method 1). I even made up my own little diagram with medium and large creatures, regular and reach weapons. The issue came up at PaizoCon so I sauntered over to Jason Bulmahn to get him to sign off on it.
He was aware of the issue and deferred to each GM's interpretation. When I pressed him for how he GM's it, he said that you don't threaten the second diagonal (15'), but that you would get an attack of opportunity when an enemy moves from the second diagonal (15') to the adjacent diagonal (5') because they passed through your 10' reach. I asked him to confirm that you don't threaten the square, but you can make attacks of opportunity against enemies that leave the square? He said yes - and I almost cried.
That is sad.
From that day forward, I've stopped trying to get 'official' answers and just check with my GM beforehand. I see a questionnaire in my future where the GM denotes how each gray area is ruled. :(
Back in LG days, I had momentarily started on an idea that I tentatively called "Know Your Judge" that was sorta the same idea. I do think it would be useful for some of that table variance stuff.
So the left one here is what is correct?
Reach + Lunge for a Medium Creature
Correct?
I belive the right hand picture is correct as the 4 extreme squares are 20' away from the Lunging character.
|
|
I belive the right hand picture is correct as the 4 extreme squares are 20' away from the Lunging character.So the left one here is what is correct?
Reach + Lunge for a Medium Creature
Correct?
I agree.
I use Stynkk's example 1 for basic reach. Lunge adds 5', giving a reach of 15'. The grid for 15' is then as the right side diagram that Harmor provided. Stynkk, this means that there are three interpretations, not merely two. :)
I belive the right hand picture is correct as the 4 extreme squares are 20' away from the Lunging character.So the left one here is what is correct?
Reach + Lunge for a Medium Creature
Correct?
I agree.
I use Stynkk's example 1 for basic reach. Lunge adds 5', giving a reach of 15'. The grid for 15' is then as the right side diagram that Harmor provided. Stynkk, this means that there are three interpretations, not merely two. :)
That does make more sense. The reach weapon changes your base reach to 10, and lunge only adds 5 to that.
The reason that medium reach weapons threaten corners is that you cant count 10' along a diagonal, so they rounded up.
So the question is a matter of how you measure reach. If you add 5 feet to your reach, do you highlight a circle around your current reach on the mat and call it a day, or do you add 5 feet to your reach, and remeasure your threatened area starting from the center of your space?
|
|
The reason that medium reach weapons threaten corners is that you cant count 10' along a diagonal, so they rounded up.
So the question is a matter of how you measure reach. If you add 5 feet to your reach, do you highlight a circle around your current reach on the mat and call it a day, or do you add 5 feet to your reach, and remeasure your threatened area starting from the center of your space?
My take on it is that the mat is merely an aid. The numeric reach is the rule; the square is merely an aid to see the rule in action.
[QUOTE="James Jacobs"]
We have been discussing if a Medium-sized T-rex wielded a reach weapon and was using the Lunge (Combat) feat, which diagram below shows the squares that she could reach?
Probably the second one, with the corners missing from the lunge area.
Although if it were a T-rex, I'd subtract 5 feet for its proportionally tiny (and thus proportionally tiny weapon) front arms. Assuming he found thumbs somewhere along the way so he could actually wield weapons in the first place.
No corners.
Howie's #3 stance is interesting. Combining the reach rules of 1 with the lunge rules of 2.
I find the fact that you subtract the corners due to measurement *some of the time* and not *all of the time* is a bit confusing.
Using pure measurement you couldn't reach 10ft diagonal with a 10ft weapon. Why "round up" in this case?
In the Core rules a 10ft radius (See Magic Chapter) has the corners removed.
|
|
Howie's #3 stance is interesting. Combining the reach rules of 1 with the lunge rules of 2.
I find the fact that you subtract the corners due to measurement *some of the time* and not *all of the time* is a bit confusing.
Using pure measurement you couldn't reach 10ft diagonal with a 10ft weapon. Why "round up" in this case?
In the Core rules a 10ft radius (See Magic Chapter) has the corners removed.
I'm not subtracting anything at any time, actually.
I'm permitting the corners when using a reach weapon; these were part of 3.5 non-OGC text and thus were left out of PF. I think they reasonably should be there. The alternative is that a character with a reach weapon cannot attack along the diagonals and can be approached along the diagonals merely as a matter of selecting what direction the grid is oriented. That's bad game design.
Your question about "why round up" isn't clear to me, but I suspect I just addressed it.
Lunge doesn't grant an extra square of reach. Rather, it grants an additional 5 feet of reach. 5+10 is 15. I then map 15 (which involves removing nothing nor adding nothing that isn't due). A 15' radius requires no additions or subtractions to make it fit the grid.
The 10 foot radius for magic isn't relevant to the discussion. It is modeling something different and a decision was made about how to handle it.
To return the favor, why allow lunge into the corners at 20 feet in #1? The 2nd diagonal is 15 feet (the specified distance). Why allow 20 feet under any circumstance?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at the all the threatened area templates, you will see that in all cases the area is rounded out to the next full square.
It's easiest to see when looking at the diagonals:
5' = 1 diagonal square
10' = 2 diagonal squares
15' = 2 diagonal squares
20' = 3 diagonal squares
25' = 4 diagonal squares
etc.
A medium creature's threatened area with a reach weapon is a square. With a whip it would be more of a circle, laking the far corners at 20'.
The only way to arrive at Stynnk's option #1 for lunge is to simply add an extra square to the threatened area rather than counting 15' from the center.
|
|
You "rounder corners" guys are all wrong -- this is a game of squares for melee guys, not rounded squares. Only casters and splashers have "bursts".
Whether your weapon is 5', 10', or enlarged 20' -- until officially ruled otherwise, you threaten a square. That's the way it's been since 3rd edition, and Pathfinder hasn't ruled otherwise as of yet.
Lunge just adds one more 5' layer to your square onion. If you are enlarged with a polearm and have Lunge, you threaten the outer three layers of a 12x12 grid with the business end of your weapon.
|
|
You "rounder corners" guys are all wrong -- this is a game of squares for melee guys, not rounded squares. Only casters and splashers have "bursts".
Whether your weapon is 5', 10', or enlarged 20' -- until officially ruled otherwise, you threaten a square. That's the way it's been since 3rd edition, and Pathfinder hasn't ruled otherwise as of yet.
Lunge just adds one more 5' layer to your square onion. If you are enlarged with a polearm and have Lunge, you threaten the outer three layers of a 12x12 grid with the business end of your weapon.
Pages 308-310 of the DMG 3.5 disagree with you. In 3.5, there was specific language to give a character with 10 foot reach the squared out corners at 15 feet. That's the sole exception.
If you choose to treat lunge as a 5' onion layer, that's your choice. To base it on the mistaken understanding that melee reach is always in the shape of a square is based on a false premise.
So as it had never come up for me (as a player who ran blasty sorcerers then less blasty sorcerers) i first saw the large creature reach weapon thing and realized i had that wrong. I'd say this is a pretty convincing argument for a rounded corner approach to reach. note the difference, I've only got one square added to my inner ring of i can't hit you, but the outside gives me 24 more!
___LLLLLL_________LLLLLLLLLLLL
__LRRRRRRL_______LRRRRRRRRRRL
_LRRRRRRRRL______LRRRRRRRRRRL
LRRR____RRRL_____LRR______RRL
LRR______RRL_____LRR______RRL
LRR__MM__RRL____LRR__MM__RRL
LRR__MM__RRL____LRR__MM__RRL
LRR______RRL_____LRR______RRL
LRRR____RRRL_____LRR______RRL
_LRRRRRRRRL______LRRRRRRRRRRL
__LRRRRRRL_______LRRRRRRRRRRL
___LLLLLL_________LLLLLLLLLLLL
and in terms of AOO's happening moving through a threatened square, it seems to me like it represents moving through the area that i can swing my weapon through. if you're busy focusing on covering distance, as taking a move action represents, as opposed to addressing the fact that, hey look i have a sword/glaive, like taking a 5 foot step or withdrawing represents, it's passing through my cutting range that lets me take a swipe at you. so while 15 ft away is too far for me to take a swing with my polearm, and 5 feet is way too close, strolling through that area in between hits my sweet-spot of death!
you don't like it, you can play with 4e movement and always run diagonal, or rule that for small scale, there's one set of rules, but once you get large, and it makes a difference, then you change the rules. physics does it with the gravity/quantum stuff, why can't D&D
EDIT, format the grid cause i forgot to preview. derp
it looks ~about~ right
Pages 308-310 of the DMG 3.5 disagree with you. In 3.5, there was specific language to give a character with 10 foot reach the squared out corners at 15 feet. That's the sole exception.
This language is not retained in the Pathfinder core rules. Personally, I find the 3.5 argument to be meaningless.
If Paizo wants Pathfinder to be its own game (away from D&D 3.5) then it needs to incorporate these "legacy" rules into its own book(s). Not to address these things (ie all rules quirks from 3.5 that are not clarified in Pathfinder) is simply irresposible.
I realize the roots/foundation of Pathfinder are in D&D 3.5, but it's about time for pathfinder to stand on its own.
Otherwise, these questions will always arise as Pathfinder attracts gamers to its system who are unfamiliar with D&D 3.5.
|
|
This language is not retained in the Pathfinder core rules. Personally, I find the 3.5 argument to be meaningless.
Pages 308-310 of the DMG 3.5 disagree with you. In 3.5, there was specific language to give a character with 10 foot reach the squared out corners at 15 feet. That's the sole exception.
He made a statement about 3.5. I used information about 3.5 to refute what he said about 3.5.
He made a statement about 3.5. I used information about 3.5 to refute what he said about 3.5.
Just a general observation about PF and rules questions :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems there are two consistent ways to decide which squares a creature threatens:
1. A creature threatens any squares that are within its reach. For instance, a large humanoid would threaten any square that is either 5 or 10 feet away from him, and a medium humanoid with a reach weapon would threaten only those squares which are 10 feet away from him.
2. A creature threatens squares within its reach value, but he also threatens a square that is 5 feet further than his reach if that square is diagonal to a square that is 5 feet less than his reach, because his actual reach should end somewhere between those two squares. This would result in a medium humanoid wielding a reach weapon, for instance, being able to attack the square 15 feet away from him on the diagonal, since that square is adjacent to a square that's only 5ft away.
Each of these interpretations creates some problems.
The first interpretation causes a problem where creatures with lesser reach can approach and attack without provoking an attack of opportunity. For instance, a creature with 5ft reach could approach creature with 10ft reach via the diagonal without provoking an attack of opportunity. This effect is also present at other reach values (except 0 reach, which will always provoke on approach even against 5ft reach).
The second interpretation, on the other hand, creates squares where a creature can attack with both a reach weapon and a normal weapon, which is not intended afaik. It also makes it harder to figure out which squares are actually threatened by a creature, as you can't just look at how far you are from it anymore - with huge creatures it does become troublesome to determine.
The way I run it is with the first interpretation, and to correct the problem I do essentially what Jason suggested to MillerHero - if a creature approaches (with something other than a 5ft step) from outside a opponent's reach to a distance closer than that opponent's maximum reach, then he provoked an attack whether he left a threatened square or not (for instance, moving from 50ft away to 25ft away from a 30ft reach creature provokes an AoO, even if you never left a threatened square).
For comparison, here's a spreadsheet with the threatened areas of creatures up to size huge under each interpretation.
another question... Can you Cut Corners with reach and lunge?
.X..X..X..X..X..X
.X...?..L..L..X..X
.X...?..R..R..L..X
W..W..X..X..R..L
W..W..C..X..R..L
W..W..X..X..R..L
W..W..R..R..L..X
W..W..L..L..X..X
c=creatures
w=walls
x=square not threatened
r=squares threatened by reach
l=square threatened by lunge
can you hit either of the "?" squares
|
|
another question... Can you Cut Corners with reach and lunge?
.X..X..X..X..X..X
.X...?..L..L..X..X
.X...?..R..R..L..X
W..W..X..X..R..L
W..W..C..X..R..L
W..W..X..X..R..L
W..W..R..R..L..X
W..W..L..L..X..Xc=creatures
w=walls
x=square not threatened
r=squares threatened by reach
l=square threatened by lungecan you hit either of the "?" squares
For the two squares indicated, the closer of the two "?" is 10 feet away and can be reached without Lunge. The corner provides cover from the attack. The farther of the two "?" is 15 feet away. It can be reached with Lunge and does not benefit from cover.
Huh?) ...what ruling or book text supports that?
Pathfinder. Which is why I mentioned Option #2 in my original post. There is no clarification text in the PF Core Rules (like people say was in 3.5) to allow 10ft reach weapons (or otherwise) to attack diagonals (which are measured as 15 ft). They would only threaten half the square.
The fact the Reach weapons threaten two diagonals is just something most people assume when playing in pathfinder, but the rules are quite fuzzy on if it is the case or not. This lax measurement system when applying to weapons/reach also indicates the reasons that people are compelled to go with Option #1 from my original post.
I am a proponent of reach being able to threaten the diagonals (Method 1). I even made up my own little diagram with medium and large creatures, regular and reach weapons. The issue came up at PaizoCon so I sauntered over to Jason Bulmahn to get him to sign off on it.
He was aware of the issue and deferred to each GM's interpretation. When I pressed him for how he GM's it, he said that you don't threaten the second diagonal (15'), but that you would get an attack of opportunity when an enemy moves from the second diagonal (15') to the adjacent diagonal (5') because they passed through your 10' reach. I asked him to confirm that you don't threaten the square, but you can make attacks of opportunity against enemies that leave the square? He said yes - and I almost cried...
emphasis mine
If it's not spelled out in something official, maybe it should be. cause it's sort of an exception to RAW if you take it as AOOs only for leaving a threatened square as opposed to passing through a threatened area.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The diagrams on d20pfsrd are wrong. They are the old diagrams using 3.5 rules. Those diagrams do not exist in pathfinder. This is how it works in Pathfinder.
x.x.x.x.x.x.x
x.x.T.T.T.x.x
x.T.x.x.x.T.x
x.T.x.C.x.T.x
x.T.x.x.x.T.x
x.x.T.T.T.x.x
x.x.x.x.x.x.xx=non-threatened square
T=threatened square
C=characterNote the diagonals! If I move in on one of the diagonals at no time do I go though a T
Secondly, since AoO are based on the leaving of a threatened "square", the enemy can take that diagonal path and nor provoke an AoO. He is 15 ft away and not threatened and then hes 5 ft away and not threatened = No AoO. Some people will argue that at some point the enemy does move through a threatened area at 10 ft away but pathfinder rules do not function that way. The rules specifically state threatened square.
You could house-rule it however you want. I actually prefer the 3.5 rule in home games. I also play PFS and so I have to follow the actual rules sometimes.
Since Pathfinder has not included a reach-threat chart explicitly confirming a change (into something virtually any reasonable person would consider preposterously absurd), the overwhelming (in fact unanimous) consensus of everyone I've ever played or DM'd with is to use the 3.5 version.
Such an interpretation is among the most mind-boggingly stupid things I've ever seen (not blaming you as the source of it), and it stems entirely from the artificiality of square-grid battlemaps -- whose lines are invisible from the POV of the characters themselves -- which means that ANY exploitation of the interpretation constitutes 100% pure, unrefined meta-gaming without the least shred of any valid in-character excuse for the behavior).
Valeros: "Merisiel! Could you scootch a bit to your right! It'll gimme a flank when I move in!"
Merisiel <readying to sneak-attack when Valeros flanks>: "I don't get it; you're lined up to charge into a flank right now, but you won't be able to charge if you move around to line up with my new position, which means you might miss!"
Valeros: "Ah, but if I come that way, I'll move up on the spearman's diagonal and deprive him of his opportunity to hit me!"
Merisiel: "What are these 'diagonals' of which you speak?" <looks at the ground> "Have you been drinking weird potions again without having them identified first?"
It flat-out destroys any reach-weapon build by making reach-weapons intrinsically worthless.
In fact, the interpretation is so ridiculous that if I were ever at a table where it was enforced, I would probably make a note not to play under that DM again.
(This is the kind of nonsense that drives people to GURPS with its hex-grid mats.)
You could house-rule it however you want. I actually prefer the 3.5 rule in home games. I also play PFS and so I have to follow the actual rules sometimes.
Since Pathfinder has not included a reach-threat chart explicitly confirming a change (into something virtually any reasonable person would consider preposterously absurd), the overwhelming (in fact unanimous) consensus of everyone I've ever played or DM'd with is to use the 3.5 version.
Problem #1: This is not 3.5, it's Pathfinder
Problem #2: Contrary to popular belief, not everyone playing Pathfinder has familiarity with 3.5.
Problem #3: If the creators wished Reach to be interpreted as it was in 3.5, they could have included the relevant text in their Core Rules. They did not.
Problem #4: Without this clarification text, a Medium-sized Reach Weapon only reaches into half a square (the second diagonal), as does a Character with 10ft natural reach. Does a character threaten a square if they can strike into only half of it?
|
|
It's STOOPID.
With extra Os.
There is utterly zero justifiable in-character reason for characters to be cognizant of an invisible grid of squares.
The movement mechanics are one thing, but this is just completely absurd.
An entire category of weapons are rendered worthless, and small characters are being totally scrood again. With extra Os.
(When I saw the nerfing of Cleave, I shrugged it off under the theory that Paizo thought the 3.5 version was too powerful -- but upon reflection, I'm coming to the alternate conclusion that somebody somewhere is completely nuts in love with diagonals.)
Problem #4: Without this clarification text, a Medium-sized Reach Weapon only reaches into half a square (the second diagonal), as does a Character with 10ft natural reach. Does a character threaten a square if they can strike into only half of it?
Spells and area effects affect a square if their range only includes half of it.
Spells and area effects affect a square if their range only includes half of it.
Problem #4: Without this clarification text, a Medium-sized Reach Weapon only reaches into half a square (the second diagonal), as does a Character with 10ft natural reach. Does a character threaten a square if they can strike into only half of it?
Welcome back to the party said the spider to the fly.
Actually, you'll see that this is not the case. Please refer to the Spell Area diagrams in the Core Rules, p.215.
The 10 foot radius spell starts at a corner and cuts out the corners (those that would be 15 ft, or the second diagonal).
This measurement consistency lends creedence to the idea of cutting the corners off Reach attacks.
|
|
Okay, I admit that I had some of it wrong. My final interpretation, if you want to call it that, makes lunge almost worthless for a character using a reach weapon, since it only adds a minimal amount of area to be able to attack in. Also note that lunge doesn't allow you to threaten those squares, only attack them during your turn.
|
Okay, I admit that I had some of it wrong. My final interpretation, if you want to call it that, makes lunge almost worthless for a character using a reach weapon, since it only adds a minimal amount of area to be able to attack in. Also note that lunge doesn't allow you to threaten those squares, only attack them during your turn.
EDIT: <Removed my incorrect reading of the graph>
Never mind ... my brain is not working this evening apparently. sheesh.
|
|
I can barely wait for the arrival of intelligent INT7 goblins who are preternaturally aware of the invisible lines underneath their filthy feet which unerringly direct them to approach my glaive-fighter along diagonals. Two from each corner so they can get in their rotten sneak-attacks without any fear of taking an opp. Or the modules where the maps are drawn with dungeon corridors at 45-degree angles to the grid of squares.
-- Whomever thought this ludicrousness up should be beaten to negative CON.
I can barely wait for the arrival of intelligent INT7 goblins who are preternaturally aware of the invisible lines underneath their filthy feet which unerringly direct them to approach my glaive-fighter along diagonals. Two from each corner so they can get in their rotten sneak-attacks without any fear of taking an opp. Or the modules where the maps are drawn with dungeon corridors at 45-degree angles to the grid of squares.
-- Whomever thought this ludicrousness up should be beaten to negative CON.
Not to be terribly sassy, but a monster with INT 7 probably wouldn't know how to exploit the weakness of a glaive wielding warrior.
|
|
Brainless vermin are going to do exactly the same thing when the mod puts the corridors at 45-degree angles to the grid. (And then they and the PCs will be lined up on diagonals like Checkers pieces, and none of the fighters can cleave them either.)
These newly restrictive corners interpretations are mechanically kludgy, impossible to account for in-character, and override elemental combat mechanics that have been consistent in all d20 open-license games for ten years (even Star Wars Saga Edition, which doesn't have 5' steps and treats all diagonal movement as 2-per, doesn't feature "gaps" in the coverage of reach).
Okay, I admit that I had some of it wrong. My final interpretation, if you want to call it that, makes lunge almost worthless for a character using a reach weapon, since it only adds a minimal amount of area to be able to attack in. Also note that lunge doesn't allow you to threaten those squares, only attack them during your turn.
on your graph, (P, 14) and (P, 18) (T, 14) and (T, 18) are not threatened by reach and should be purple, not yellow.
I see a great tactic with Lunge as using Pushing assault to move then out of your range and then hitting them with lunge it lets you knock the guy 10 ft away back to 15 so he can't 5-foot step inside your reach on your first attack, then keep hitting them with your iterative attacks,And it lets you hit someone who is blocked by enemies withought drawing AOOs maneuvering closer to them.
And it lets you full attack a creature 20 ft away.
And it lets you fill attack that pesky large ogre with a glaive that just stabbed you without taking any AOOs from moving closer.
And it lets you line up in a hallway: Melee, Reach, Lunge, caster and have everyone be able to line up and hit the one enemy in the bottleneck instead of having only one or two characters be able to hit him.
hate hallway fighting
*shakes fist*
And can charge an enemy that much further from you, or off to the side.
And lets you Full attack the Large beastie with natural 15 ft away, and then 5' step away so he has to use a move action to approach you, Draw an AOO AND not get his nasty full attack on you.
Or you can just stab him and stroll away with a move action free of his AOO cause you were never in his threat range.
Can you Flank with Reach? if so then it should work with lunge, and you get a flank at 15' away.
And can charge an enemy that much further from you.
Can you hit that winged bugger hovering "Just out of your reach" either over a balcony or in the air,
Or ready an action from the balcony to hit him with lunge as he moves in for a spring attack or fly-by into the square adjacent to your ally, 15' from you.
Sure it's situational, but there are a lot of situations where a Polearm Control type (CR & StandStill) would like to be able to exert his control an extra 5' away.