
Blueluck |

When a medium creature is mounted on a large creature (Let's stipulate a Knight on a Horse, for conversation's sake.) and wielding a non-reach weapon (Sword) the knight occupies 4 squares and can attack one square away from his four.
K=Knight
A=Attack squares
Figure #1 - Knight with Sword
A A A A
A K K A
A K K A
A A A A
What if the Knight is wielding a reach weapon? Does that range of attack stay the same, or grow?
Figure #2 - Knight with Reach?
A A A A A A
A A A A A A
A A K K A A
A A K K A A
A A A A A A
A A A A A A
If the area grows, does the "dead zone" of the reach weapon grow with it?
Figure #3 - Knight with Reach?
A A A A A A
A _ _ _ _ A
A _ K K _ A
A _ K K _ A
A _ _ _ _ A
A A A A A A
For the mounted Knight in these diagrams, which represents the area he can attack with a reach weapon, Figure #1, #2, or #3?

Troubleshooter |

None of the diagrams are taking the diagonal blinds spots into account...
This horse lich is killing me. |:
Well, it's like this.
In 3.5, there was a stipulation for Reach weapons that "Reach is not affected by the every-10-feet-counts-as-15-feet" rule; that is, creatures' threatened areas are perfect squares on a battlemap, not circles.
The reason being was, if a creature with a Reach weapon such as a Lance had to count that rule, they did not threaten a perfect circle -- their threatened zone looked like this:
OTTTO
TOOOT
TOXOT
TOOOT
OTTTO
If threatened squares obeyed the same laws as movement, then creatures have the magical ability to approach enemies from the diagonal without provoking any attacks of opportunity, where they normally would when approaching from cardinal directions.
Now, Pathfinder has no such stipulation that Reach weapons are exempt from normal distance-tracking; so technically, you are correct. However, many people still use the old rule (knowingly or not -- it can be hard to notice a rule you used is no longer present).

Blueluck |

Mahorfeus wrote:None of the diagrams are taking the diagonal blinds spots into account...Now, Pathfinder has no such stipulation that Reach weapons are exempt from normal distance-tracking; so technically, you are correct. However, many people still use the old rule (knowingly or not -- it can be hard to notice a rule you used is no longer present).
In D&D I've seen diagrams of various threatened areas. Can you show me one from Pathfinder that displays this difference?

Blueluck |

Blueluck wrote:Looking at figure 3 (knight wielding a lance and riding a horse), what would one have to do to let both the horse and the knight attack on a charge?Ride-by-Attack
That's a great idea!
Charge up to lance range, rider attacks, continue in a straight line into bite range, mount attacks.