RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And if it's a smaller creature in your square, you wouldn't hold the thing out into another 5ft square, you'd simply STILL both be in your square, grappling.
That would be the opposite of what the rules say.
If you're the GM of your own game, feel free to change the rules to make sense to you. Just remember that this is the section of the boards dealing with how the rules currently are, and sometimes they make a little less sense than a well-thought-out houserule.
But no matter how many times you insistently repeat that they should be different (and maybe they should!), it doesn't change how they currently work by default.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Being able to come up with a cool description of what might happen in real life has no bearing on how the rules of the game work.Being completely rude when somebody doesn't agree with your point has no bearing on whether or not your point is valid.
That statement was not intended to be rude at all. I meant it completely at face value. Sorry for the apparent lack of clarity in that respect.
Everything you just said has already been rebutted, mostly by either myself or Grick. Please read those replies so we don't have to repeat ourselves.
Strike Back seems to refer to things you couldn't normally hit due to their superior reach. If your limb enters an adjacent square in a way that provokes an attack of opportunity, you are now within their 5 foot reach, regardless of the feat. Since picking up an object provokes an attack of opportunity, and your limb is in the square they can hit, then you can be hit.
Again, entering a square is not STANDING IN a square.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So really, all this discussion is... is whether or not it SHOULD be allowed.
Good call on bringing it back to the point. You're right we were getting sidetracked.
I haven't seen anybody pull out a rule that says you can grab an item from an adjacent square. So quoting it as "how the rules work" is not quite correct yet.
I will gladly concede the point to you when you tell me specifically where it states that you can reach into another square and take an unattended item from it.
Basically, I'm arguing from a perspective of precedent:
The rules are explicit in letting you grab an attended item from an adjacent square. I contend that this sets a precedent from which we can extrapolate that an unattended adjacent object should be handled the same way, rather than a different way.Meanwhile, I am aware of no precedent whatsoever for needing to move into an item's space to pick it up. Handling it this way does not mirror any existing (and sufficiently similar/relevant) rule that I am aware of, and in fact goes against the aforementioned precedent.
So I see Option #1 having precedent to support it, and Option #2 contradicting precedent. Therefore, I conclude that Option #1 (being able to retrieve an adjacent item) is most likely to be correct.
If you can show Option #1's precedent to be invalid, then the two Options become equal (neither is supported by or contradicts any precedent). At that point, it is up to GM discretion and nothing else. If you cannot invalidate Option #1's precedent, then you need something stronger than precedent (such as an actual rule, or developer commentary, etc) to override it.
Your case?
Granted I haven't read every single post on this thread but I think everyone who thinks you can attack someone who is reaching into a threatened square need to remember this:
You can only attack a creature if you threaten THE SPACE IT OCCUPIES. Not the spaces it looks at, spaces it reaches into, spaces it passes wind into, spaces it's hair flows into, spaces its long pretty cape happens to glance into... you can ONLY ATTACK CREATURES WHO OCCUPY SPACES THAT YOU THREATEN.
Ergo, reaching into a space that is, in and of itself threatened, does not, by itself, provoke. If the reacher is in a space that is threatened that is a different story. You don't need to reference grapple or other random other rules, you don't need to look anything else up. You don't need to think about how this would work "in real life" you don't even have to think this makes sense or offends your religious faith. All you have to remember is that you can ONLY ATTACK CREATURES WHO OCCUPY SPACES THAT YOU THREATEN.
This keeps coming up.
Oh also, I think the rules on what you can pick up from where are relatively weak but the usual assumption (I believe) is that you are picking up from spaces you actually occupy. I personally don't have an issue saying you can pick up unattended objects from any space within your REACH, but that's just a GM call on my end.
Granted I haven't read every single post on this thread but I think everyone who thinks you can attack someone who is reaching into a threatened square need to remember this:
You can only attack a creature if you threaten THE SPACE IT OCCUPIES. Not the spaces it looks at, spaces it reaches into, spaces it passes wind into, spaces it's hair flows into, spaces its long pretty cape happens to glance into... you can ONLY ATTACK CREATURES WHO OCCUPY SPACES THAT YOU THREATEN.
Ergo, reaching into a space that is, in and of itself threatened, does not, by itself, provoke. If the reacher is in a space that is threatened that is a different story. You don't need to reference grapple or other random other rules, you don't need to look anything else up. You don't need to think about how this would work "in real life" you don't even have to think this makes sense or offends your religious faith. All you have to remember is that you can ONLY ATTACK CREATURES WHO OCCUPY SPACES THAT YOU THREATEN.
This keeps coming up.
When you reach into a space to pick up an object, you are occupying it, if not for long.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My case is simply that I do not believe that the rules are clear enough to adequately support Option 1 or Option 2. If you accept Option 1 as fact, than it opens up a host of in game situations that could be problematic.
To further clarify, I do not accept Option 1 as fact. I regard it as the best-supported possibility. It's not explicit in the rules, but it is the simplest, cleanest, and most in line with related rules/mechanics.
So again, I'm not saying that Option 1 is wrong and Option 2 is right.
Uh... It's sounded very much like that's what you've been saying, up until now.
Strike Back seems to refer to things you couldn't normally hit due to their superior reach. If your limb enters an adjacent square in a way that provokes an attack of opportunity, you are now within their 5 foot reach, regardless of the feat.
That's exactly what we're talking about.
If an ogre makes an unarmed strike against you from 10' away, he provokes because it's untrained. You can't hit him, because you don't threaten his square. You can't hit his fist as it swings in towards your face.
If you could, then you could always ready an action to attack a body part that attacks you, which makes Strike Back do nothing.
When you reach into a space to pick up an object, you are occupying it, if not for long.
The rules do not state this. Further, it makes existing rules incomprehensible or impossible.
This would make it so if you pick up an unattended object from an occupied square, you have to make an acrobatics check to move through an occupied square.
That means if you reach into a space to punch an orc, you are occupying the orcs square, if not for long. Meaning acrobatics check again. Poor monks.
Rogues would be able to pick locks and activate traps from an adjacent square, even one opposite of the door, people would be able to interact with objects that are attached to a ceiling 10-ft high, ect.
Yes, No, Yes.
The rogue doesn't merge into the door in order to pick a lock.
If the lock is on the other side of the door, the rogue doesn't have line of effect.
An object hanging from a 10' high ceiling is occupying the 5-10' square, which is 5' from the 5-foot-square that a medium creature occupies, thus is within reach. The same way a medium creature that levitates 5' up is still within reach of adjacent medium creatures.
When you reach into a space to pick up an object, you are occupying it, if not for long.
Uh no, you don't. By the rules you occupy the space your character is standing in. While in the "real world" you may imagine anything you want, in game terms, you specifically only occupy the spaces you are standing in. If you reach into a space you are not standing in, by definition you are not occupying that space and therefore no one can attack you (or the part of you entering that space.) There are feats that allow this, and the Ready Action MIGHT be able to be used against something like this (if you have a liberal GM) AND even the designers (in the 3.x FAQ) indicated that it might be reasonable to allow an AoO BUT BY THE RULES AS WRITTEN you can't attack someone for just reaching into an area they threaten.
You can ONLY attack a creature that occupies a space that you threaten.
@Malach: So just to be clear, you're saying that you CAN pick up an item from an adjacent square, but that doing so will provoke if the item's space is threatened? Did I follow you correctly?
In real life It is very difficult to pick something in a another square without getting half you body in there so yes, I would say AoO for it. Of course that is just my playing since 1979 opinion. If say the person picking it up was a orc, and the player was the one with the AoO, I am 99% sure most players would want an AoO.
And yes AoO are a abstraction for combat for the 6 second round, if you have ever tried combat 6 seconds is a long time. Of course you could always go the GURPS route . . . 1 second rounds.
Of course depending upon the rules you use in Gurps you combat could last longer than the rest of the adventure.
I wasn't asking you to support your position, just asking if I correctly understood WHAT your position was.
And I'm still not sure. :P
My ruling would be picking up the item would use a move action and picking something up normally provokes an AoO. So either way, the AoO happens if the object being picked up in a threatened area.
I can see a lot of abuse of the rule if you can just reach out 5' in either direction without any type of consequence.
I could use another example. You have a Orc in a threatening square that to a lever is in the the PC has use. By allowing that Mr. Fantastic style stretch said PC can now manipulate the lever from a non threatened square by reach to pull it with no threat to the character?
You have a Orc in a threatening square that to a lever is in the the PC has use. By allowing that Mr. Fantastic style stretch said PC can now manipulate the lever from a non threatened square by reach to pull it with no threat to the character?
The orc could ready an action that says "If that idiot PC attempts to touch that lever I'm gonna 5 ft. step and thwack 'im a good'n."
Then, the PC starts to reach for the lever (assuming of course that he is not occupying a space that is, in and of itself, threatened by the orc."
The orc's ready goes off. He 5 ft. steps into the square that contains the lever and smashes the PC.
My ruling would be picking up the item would use a move action and picking something up normally provokes an AoO.
Good so far.
So either way, the AoO happens if the object being picked up in a threatened area.
He provokes, but in order to make the AoO, you must threaten the square the creature occupies.
Just like trying to untrained disarm someone with a longspear, you provoke, but if the creature can't reach you, he can't take that AoO.
You have a Orc in a threatening square that to a lever is in the the PC has use. By allowing that Mr. Fantastic style stretch said PC can now manipulate the lever from a non threatened square by reach to pull it with no threat to the character?
If the orc can't reach the square the character occupies, then the orc can't hit him.
|
Fun food for thought for those arguing about how far you can "really" reach:
If you have a reach weapon (can attack 10ft away), you can attack a non-adjacent diagonal space with it, even though walking there would cost 15ft of movement.
Where is the explanation for this? My group and PFS group have looked for this over and over again, and nothing is ever stated about it. Therefore, the 2nd diagonal would be 15' away, and a reach weapon can't threaten that square. I vaguely remember this being a 3.5 rule, but there doesn't appear to be a ruling in PF.
My group and PFS group have looked for this over and over again, and nothing is ever stated about it. Therefore, the 2nd diagonal would be 15' away, and a reach weapon can't threaten that square. I vaguely remember this being a 3.5 rule, but there doesn't appear to be a ruling in PF.
If you don't, that means anyone can approach someone with a reach weapon at a diagonal and never leave a threatened square.
That said, it's not an official rule as far as I know. I think JJ said no at first, then said maybe, so the end result is to basically run it how you want. (Lots of people kind of make a rule about the border between the 5' and 10' square, so passing through it provokes, but otherwise you can't make a regular attack into that square)
|
|
My group and PFS group have looked for this over and over again, and nothing is ever stated about it. Therefore, the 2nd diagonal would be 15' away, and a reach weapon can't threaten that square. I vaguely remember this being a 3.5 rule, but there doesn't appear to be a ruling in PF.If you don't, that means anyone can approach someone with a reach weapon at a diagonal and never leave a threatened square.
That said, it's not an official rule as far as I know. I think JJ said no at first, then said maybe, so the end result is to basically run it how you want. (Lots of people kind of make a rule about the border between the 5' and 10' square, so passing through it provokes, but otherwise you can't make a regular attack into that square)
It's not a matter of how I run it. I run it that way because there are no rules saying the 2nd diagonal ISN'T 15' on an attack. I don't know how I can possibly rule it a different way unless there's precedence (like from 3.5) or if that rule is hidden somewhere.
If you’re a Medium-size character armed with a reach weapon, you do not threaten a foe 2 diagonals (15 feet away), but if a foe moves up to attack you on the diagonal, you still get an attack of opportunity against that foe before the foe gets adjacent to you. (At some point the approaching foe had to be 10 feet away and threatened by you.) Note, however, that if the foe moves adjacent to you with a 5-foot step, you do not get an attack of opportunity, even if the foe takes that step along a diagonal.
Note: Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)
A reach weapon gives a specific extension to your reach. When you count out squares, since every other square is doubled when you count diagonally, that means that there'll be corners where you can't reach.
Reach, in my opinion, should work into diagonal squares, though. For what that's worth. Because treating reach like movement leaves "holes" in the corners that pretty much defeat the whole purpose of reach weapons. Which is lame.
The only way to hit someone who is reaching into a square is with the Strike Back feat. The existence of that feat means that without that feat, you can't attack someone's limb that reaches into your square, much less into an adjacent threatened square.
You can ready an action to attack someone when he comes within reach, as in, when he enters a square you threaten. Without any feat.
You can also ready an action to attack someone when he tries to attack you, as in, reaches into your square. Without any feat.What
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
Regarding the diagonal reach stuff... The distance from a corner of the square you're standing in to the farmost corner of a square diagonal from you is 7.07 ft. Which means that, with a reach of 10 ft, you can reach about 3 ft into the next diagonal square. While that means that technically you can't hit every place inside of the square, it will probably be far enough for most circumstances.
Anyway, I'd like to see official answers for both problems.
It's not a matter of how I run it. I run it that way because there are no rules saying the 2nd diagonal ISN'T 15' on an attack. I don't know how I can possibly rule it a different way unless there's precedence (like from 3.5) or if that rule is hidden somewhere.
It's definitely a 3.5 rule (link, see the "Reach weapons" section)
Note: Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)
I've never been able to figure out why it didn't make the cut in PF--oversight or intentional.
EDIT: It's also in the 3.5 PHB, but mine is at home, and I am not, so I can't find the page reference right now.
What Strike Back does is that it allows you to ready an action to attack someone you normally could not attack because he is outside of your reach, as in, not standing in one of your threatened squares.
Which is what half the people here are talking about. You're in square A. Orc does not threaten square A. You pick up an item in square B, which Orc does threaten.
Orc cannot hit you when you provoke, because he does not threaten the square you're in.
Others are saying that by reaching part of your limb into the square, Orc can attack the part of you that entered a threatened square.
The rules are silent on whether or not you need to be in a square, or merely within reach of it, to pick up something in it.
Reaching into a threatened square does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
I would just rule the PC had to go into the square to pick up the item and could not reach into square B to pick up the item which small and on the floor.
I would be different if the object took up most of that 5' space
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if part of the difficulty some people are having is the result of looking at the issue in too much isolation. Let's look at the big picture here:
Option #1:
Player A: "Hey, can I grab an item from an adjacent square?"
Player B: "Yes."
Player A: "Okay, thanks."
Option #2:
Player A: "Hey, can I grab an item from an adjacent square?"
Player B: "Only if an enemy is trying to keep you from doing so. If it's unattended, you have to get closer."
If someone honestly thinks that Option #2 above makes more sense, then I have nothing more to add to the discussion.
Which, I'll reiterate, is ridiculous.
I'm not sure if i'd called it ridiculous. I can understand the argument that by RAW, you can grab something from an adjacent square (for all the reasons you've listed so far), but i can also agree with some of the other people that have suggested that you'd need baboon arms to reach things that are 5+ feet away. I think in combat, we're assuming that our foe's are closer to us than they may seem on the map - otherwise every battle would be dominated by, well... baboons.
As it stands, though, I agree with you - RAW seems to support the idea that you can interact with things that are 5+ feet away from you, so why not pick something up? Picking something up seems infintely easier to accomplish than, say, whacking something with a pointy stick or pole, and we do that from five feet away all the time in games.
I think that if this came up with in my game I'd houserule that If you want to reach into an adjacent square to retrieve something and the Orc manages to successfully hit you with his AoO you drop the item. If you want to move into the space and grab it, you automatically pick it up regardless of a successful attack.
If there were ever a poster child of internet anal retentive extreme absurdism argumentativeness, this post wins that designation. If I taught a class on internet dynamics, this post would be a whole day's lecture.
|
|
It's not a matter of how I run it. I run it that way because there are no rules saying the 2nd diagonal ISN'T 15' on an attack. I don't know how I can possibly rule it a different way unless there's precedence (like from 3.5) or if that rule is hidden somewhere.It's definitely a 3.5 rule (link, see the "Reach weapons" section)
Note: Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)I've never been able to figure out why it didn't make the cut in PF--oversight or intentional.
EDIT: It's also in the 3.5 PHB, but mine is at home, and I am not, so I can't find the page reference right now.
Yeah there was a huge verbal fight about this one time in my area, but when we looked for it in PF Core, we could not find it anywhere. We concluded no matter what the reason was for exclusion, we would have to follow the book (this was PFS, so of course it needs to be by the book, but I would still do that myself in a home game).
I'll agree with it in the sense that it cuts down on another exception to the rules. Less confusion is usually a good thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there were ever a poster child of internet anal retentive extreme absurdism argumentativeness, this post wins that designation. If I taught a class on internet dynamics, this post would be a whole day's lecture.
Really? Looks more like a lesson in self-reference. Or did you mean "that post"?
Get it?
If you look in the back of the CRB, there is a template for 10' reach. I am not going to tell you whose argument it supports, just take a look.
If there were ever a poster child of internet anal retentive extreme absurdism argumentativeness, this post wins that designation. If I taught a class on internet dynamics, this post would be a whole day's lecture.Really? Looks more like a lesson in self-reference. Or did you mean "that post"?
Get it?
Well, he never quotes or references any other specific post, and only talks about "this post." So, yeah.
TL;DR: PWNED!!!!!
If there were ever a poster child of internet anal retentive extreme absurdism argumentativeness, this post wins that designation. If I taught a class on internet dynamics, this post would be a whole day's lecture.
Post = Thread?
If there were ever a poster child of internet anal retentive extreme absurdism argumentativeness, this post wins that designation. If I taught a class on internet dynamics, this post would be a whole day's lecture.Post = Thread?
I should have used "thread" but "post" refers to the original posting, the other items in the thread are "comments" on the "post." At least in my lexicon.
That's why this is such a perfect thread for illustrative purposes TOZ. Because the first post was totally reasonable and rational.
It is rather entertaining. The original poster asked his question. I immediately gave him the RAW answer. And then chaos erupted, without a peep from him or me (other than a quick reference to a diagram in the rulebook on an unrelated subject).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the rules picking up an object provokes an attack of opportunity. Also, by the rules you cannot provoke an attack of opportunity if you are not occupying a threatened square. So, next time your character is disarmed, do not simply pick up your weapon, be sure instead to take five-foot step back out of harm’s way and only then reach into the threatened square to retrieve your weapon.
You can avoid an attack of opportunity this way. ;)
By the rules picking up an object provokes an attack of opportunity. Also, by the rules you cannot provoke an attack of opportunity if you are not occupying a threatened square. So, next time your character is disarmed, do not simply pick up your weapon, be sure instead to take five-foot step back out of harm’s way and only then reach into the threatened square to retrieve your weapon.
You can avoid an attack of opportunity this way. ;)
Man, that is just awful, but awesome at the same time...
If "picking up a weapon" by RAW provokes an attack of opportunity, then that is a specific rule that supersedes the general rule that you have to be in a threatened square.
As a GM I would probably rule that the creature adjacent to the weapon you are picking up can take a swipe at your outstretched hand, which must be in that square to pick up the weapon.
If "picking up a weapon" by RAW provokes an attack of opportunity, then that is a specific rule that supersedes the general rule that you have to be in a threatened square.
There's nothing to supercede, there's two conditions that have to be met. 1) It has to be a provoking action 2) The creature has to be in a threatened square.
Grabbing someone to grapple them also provokes an attack of opportunity. However even though the other creatures arm is grabbing your head, if the creature has reach and you don't you can't take your attack of opportunity
because you don't threaten their square.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
Now you could reasonably argue that putting your hand into another creatures square to grab their head or to grab a sword is performing an action in the defending creatures square/threatened area, but the existing rules for other cases go against that interpretation.
Several posters in this thread claimed that such a strict adherence to the rules could be abused. We should explore this and post examples. We should see if this is really broken or just apparently so.
I myself am wondering if a character could open a door from 5 feet away? Or if a giant with 10 foot reach could open the door from 5 feet away?