Can someone show me what the 15-foot threatened area of an archer using IMPROVED SNAP SHOT is supposed to look like? There's been some discussion about the diagonals, and I'm not really sure what's what anymore.
|
Can someone show me what the 15-foot threatened area of an archer using IMPROVED SNAP SHOT is supposed to look like? There's been some discussion about the diagonals, and I'm not really sure what's what anymore.
Here you go. The black square is where the archer is located. The red squares are the threatened squares.
Think of it just like movement. Your first diagonal is worth 5, your second is worth 10.
Think of it just like movement. Your first diagonal is worth 5, your second is worth 10.
Unless, of course, I am a medium creature with 10 foot reach.
Unless, of course, I am a medium creature with 10 foot reach.Huh? What are you referring to?
A medium creature with 10 foot reach (such as from a polearm) counts the diagonals, even though they would, by your interpretation, be 20 feet, not 15. Essentially, such a character would threaten a big square, rather than a circle.
I believe a large creature with 10 foot reach also threatens a big square.
|
|
A medium creature with 10 foot reach (such as from a polearm) counts the diagonals, even though they would, by your interpretation, be 20 feet, not 15. Essentially, such a character would threaten a big square, rather than a circle.
I believe a large creature with 10 foot reach also threatens a big square.
Where is this written at? That doesn't make any sense, especially since the calculation of movement (5-10-5-10) falls right in line with the pythagorean theorem.
That's also why spells with a radius have a similar patten to what I drew with my diagram. Where in the Core rule does it say reach works like that?
A medium creature with 10 foot reach (such as from a polearm) counts the diagonals, even though they would, by your interpretation, be 20 feet, not 15. Essentially, such a character would threaten a big square, rather than a circle.
I believe a large creature with 10 foot reach also threatens a big square.
Where is this written at? That doesn't make any sense, especially since the calculation of movement (5-10-5-10) falls right in line with the pythagorean theorem.
That's also why spells with a radius have a similar patten to what I drew with my diagram. Where in the Core rule does it say reach works like that?
It's been that way in every diagram I've ever seen from v3.0 to Pathfinder.
|
|
It's been that way in every diagram I've ever seen from v3.0 to Pathfinder.
Please reference where you have seen that in Pathfinder. That cannot be right at all.
I have updated the page to reference 3 different diagrams. The first is the threat area of a medium archer with the Improved Snap Shot feat.
The 2nd is the threaten area of a large creature with 10 ft. natural reach.
The 3rd is the threaten area of a medium creature with a reach weapon.
It should never just be a big block that you threaten, because diagonals have that 5-10-5-10 space going on.
If you'd like any other diagrams, I will be more than happy to supply them.
I'm not so great with Googledocs, but needles to say, if you add one more square to each of the corners of the two new diagrams, you will have what I believe to be RAW/RAI. For creatures of larger sizes (or with more than 10-foot reach) your rule of diagonals seems to be true. The only reason smaller creature/characters use squares is to prevent people from abusing diagonal movement to avoid attacks of opportunities and such.
I'm having some difficulty finding ANY reach diagrams for Pathfinder, but the devs have stated that people cannot take advantage of diagonal movement to get past reach.
|
|
I'm not so great with Googledocs, but needles to say, if you add one more square to each of the corners of the two new diagrams, you will have what I believe to be RAW/RAI. For creatures of larger sizes (or with more than 10-foot reach) your rule of diagonals seems to be true. The only reason smaller creature/characters use squares is to prevent people from abusing diagonal movement to avoid attacks of opportunities and such.
I'm having some difficulty finding ANY reach diagrams for Pathfinder, but the devs have stated that people cannot take advantage of diagonal movement to get past reach.
That's ridiculous. Can you link to some dev postings about that? I truly have a hard time believing folks just have big threaten blocks around them that includes the 4 corners. That just makes no sense when lining up with the rules of movement and spacing. That's a free 5 feet of reach that you should not have.
That's ridiculous. Can you link to some dev postings about that? I truly have a hard time believing folks just have big threaten blocks around them that includes the 4 corners. That just makes no sense when lining up with the rules of movement and spacing. That's a free 5 feet of reach that you should not have.
In pure measurement terms you are correct sir.
In gamist terms, the dork is referring to rules exceptions that were made in D&D 3.0-3.5. Unfortunately, those rule exceptions did not find their way into the pathfinder core rules.
So we have a conflict of what was and what is. And if the two shall meet. This causes problems because we don't know what rules holdovers we should/should not adapt from the game pathfinder was modeled upon.
10 foot reach is an exception to the "measure reach like movement" rule.
Note that a reach weapon has "Reach: 10 feet" not "Reach: squares more than 5 feet but less than 15 feet away according to the movement chart". This is a crucial difference. If a creature were to move from 15 feet away (a point two diagonal squares away) to 5 feet away (a point adjacent) he passes through a 10 foot arc. The grid system is an abstraction to help with movement, miniatures and spell placement. You do have to keep in mind what the actual rules say though. 10 feet is 10 feet, no matter the angle.
So, in short, no you cannot by-pass a polearm by coming in from an angle.
That's ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is the idea of people slipping by my polearm for moving diagonally even though, as far as the characters are concerned, the squares and diagonals don't exist. It's metagaming at it's best.
Can you link to some dev postings about that? I truly have a hard time believing folks just have big threaten blocks around them that includes the 4 corners. That just makes no sense when lining up with the rules of movement and spacing. That's a free 5 feet of reach that you should not have.
A creature with 10 foot reach threatens things diagonally two spaces away from them.
This is contrary to the way measuring diagonals normally works in Pathfinder, but without this exception, it becomes possible to approach a creature with 10 foot reach without threatening an AoO merely by coming in on a diagonal, which frankly doesn't make any sense.
I don't remember if this applies to reach greater than 10 feet.
It's worth noting that James Jacobs originally ruled against it, but later changed his mind.
|
|
I don't see why you can't bypass coming in at an angle, considering you're having to take extra movement just to position yourself at that angle, plus you're adding extra movement with the 5-10-5-10 business.
And if ranged melee gets a pass, why aren't casters upset they can't add another 5 ft. diagonal on their 10 ft. emanation (insert others here too) because technically the emanation stops halfway between the 2nd diagonal square.
But whatever, if someone shows a dev talking about it then I'll go along with it. There is currently nothing in the core rulebook (to my knowledge) that speaks to this carry over rule.
/Ninja'd
Can you link to some dev postings about that? I truly have a hard time believing folks just have big threaten blocks around them that includes the 4 corners. That just makes no sense when lining up with the rules of movement and spacing. That's a free 5 feet of reach that you should not have.It's worth noting that James Jacobs originally ruled against it, but later changed his mind.A creature with 10 foot reach threatens things diagonally two spaces away from them.
This is contrary to the way measuring diagonals normally works in Pathfinder, but without this exception, it becomes possible to approach a creature with 10 foot reach without threatening an AoO merely by coming in on a diagonal, which frankly doesn't make any sense.
I don't remember if this applies to reach greater than 10 feet.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I'm not a game developer (just a software one). The little golem next to my name doesn't make me more of a rules expert than anyone else on this forum.
(The citation of James Jacobs, on the other hand, is much more appropriate.)