|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ok, so this came up the other day while we were playing. We were being attacked by a monster that was 10x10 and had 10' reach. One of the players had said that the monster couldn't hit (didn't threaten) the second diagonal square because it was 15' away but I've always been under the impression (at least since 3.5) that reaching into the square was enough.
B=Bad Guy
X=Square threatened
O=Square not threatened
OXXXXO
XXXXXX
XXBBXX
XXBBXX
XXXXXX
OXXXXO
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXBBXX
XXBBXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
So to better (I hope) illustrate what I'm asking; the diagram on the top shows that the bad guy can't reach or threaten the outer most 4 squared because they're 15' away vs. the diagram on the bottom that shows it can get all of those squares.
Now in the 3.5 DMG there was a really nice set of diagrams in the back of the book that illustrated how reach works and what squares were within the creatures reach. I still use those since Pathfinder is based on 3.5, but does Pathfinder have it's own set of diagrams or even just something written out that changes how reach for larger and larger creatures work?
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
From what I understand of both 3.5 and Pathfinder, the first diagram is correct. A character in one of the diagonal squares is more than 10' away, or can be counted as such, so they cannot be attacked.
|
|
Actually the diagram on page 308 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide shows the diagram for a Large (10x10x10 reach) creature to go by the BOTTOM diagram. And then if the Large creature is using a weapon it goes out from there but at weird angles.
I know that, while Pathfinder is based on 3.5, it has changed more than a few rules and how things work. That's why I'm wondering if they're are some diagrams somewhere that I missed or something written out that I over looked. Otherwise I'll keep going by the diagrams in the 3.5 book to stay consistent.
|
As far as I know there are no diagrams in the Core Rulebook (or any other Pathfinder RPG book for that matter) like the ones in the back of the DMG. The only reference on how to measure distance in Pathfinder is from pp. 192-193 of the Core Rulebook, which are part of the "movement" section. Since that's the only place it's mentioned, I'm assuming that the old "every other diagonal square counts as 2 squares, except when it comes to reach where everything is 1:1" rule from 3.5 is now defunct, and that everything uses the same 3/2 progression from 192-193 ... as far as I know.
EDIT: My assumption is correct. James Jacobs has commented on this in THIS THREAD.
This should be added to the FAQ, IMO.
|
|
As far as I know there are no diagrams in the Core Rulebook (or any other Pathfinder RPG book for that matter) like the ones in the back of the DMG. The only reference on how to measure distance in Pathfinder is from pp. 192-193 of the Core Rulebook, which are part of the "movement" section. Since that's the only place it's mentioned, I'm assuming that the old "every other diagonal square counts as 2 squares, except when it comes to reach where everything is 1:1" rule from 3.5 is now defunct, and that everything uses the same 3/2 progression from 192-193 ... as far as I know.
EDIT: My assumption is correct. James Jacobs has commented on this in THIS THREAD.
This should be added to the FAQ, IMO.
Yeah, and then James Jacobs went on to say he may have ruled it wrong like 25 or 30 posts later in the same thread. This should be FAQ'ed.
The main problem with the top diagram, especially with reach weapons, is that it creates the ridiculous issue that if you come at a monster/character wielding a reach weapon diagonally you can sidestep their reach. Because apparently ogres suck at geometry so badly that diagonals confuse them out of attacking you. xD
So I have always ruled that in the case of 10' reach you do get the 4 corners even though that's 15 reach. Better to have your reach slightly inflated than to create nonsensical holes in it.
Yep, the rules are silly that way. Easiest to say that you get AoOs to enemies attacking through that corner square but not retreating from it - ie that a foe there can be treated as in or out of range of the reach weapon depending on how it behaves; out of range if it is trying to avoid you, in range if it is trying to reach you.
Unfortunately I don't see a simple solution to this.
Unfortunately, hex grids don't work well with (usually) orthogonal rooms...
Unfortunately, hex grids don't work well with (usually) orthogonal rooms...Have you played Pathfinder using a hex grid?
Yes, hex grids work great. Not only do they make counting distance and area templates a snap, they're much better for modeling irregular rooms. As for square rooms, bisecting a hex is pretty easy.
The main problem with the top diagram, especially with reach weapons, is that it creates the ridiculous issue that if you come at a monster/character wielding a reach weapon diagonally you can sidestep their reach. Because apparently ogres suck at geometry so badly that diagonals confuse them out of attacking you. xD
So I have always ruled that in the case of 10' reach you do get the 4 corners even though that's 15 reach. Better to have your reach slightly inflated than to create nonsensical holes in it.
IMO, this is the reason the 3.5 diagrams seemed to round up on the diagonals.
These are the templates I use:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/space-reach-threatened-area-te mplates
Awesome! I will bookmark that link.
Yes, hex grids work great. Not only do they make counting distance and area templates a snap, they're much better for modeling irregular rooms. As for square rooms, bisecting a hex is pretty easy.
Unfortunately, hex grids don't work well with (usually) orthogonal rooms...Have you played Pathfinder using a hex grid?
But can you stand in a bisected hex? If so, are you squeezing or is it as normal? What if people on both sides of the wall want to stand in the same bisected hex? If you can't stand there, then you get weird behavior when you try to walk along a wall...