I encounter this question when I have flying creatures 10ft off the ground. Can you hit something that is 10ft off the ground with a non reach weapon?
Players say "well I'm 6ft tall and my arm is 3 feet long and my weapon is another 3ft so its logical I can reach"
HELP?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your arm length does not matter. All creatures have the reach based on their size category, body type, and weapons they are using.
Your character can not hit something that is 10 feat up without a feat weapon.
edit:By body type I mean long vs tall. As a PC that does not really apply to you, but it is important to know for determining if you will provoke an AoO or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player is standing in a 5 by 5 by 5 square.
A creature 5 feet above the ground above them or caddy corner to them is in another 5 by 5 by 5 square that is within reach. A creature 10 feet above the ground is not, same as a creature that is 10 feet away on the ground.
I actually had this discrepancy the other day with a player, and the answer is no you have 5 foot reach if you are a medium creature using a non reach weapon.
What I told my players was that it didn't make sense to do it that way or everyone would play 7ft tall characters.
It also makes sense to say that if they can reach that far then they have trouble reaching things closer to them (like many large sized creatures).
In any event a flying creature has to make a fly check if it gets hit in order to keep its current altitude so if all else fails they can always throw their weapons.
thank you all.
Gotta remember to make those fly checks! DOH!
@Pipe: I remember having a player blow up and quit the game bc he could not strike levitating Drow 10ft above him! It was not pretty but I had to make a ruling on the fly.
|
One way to look at it is that the creature is moving, and is 10 to 15 feet above the ground, not exactly 120 inches.
I would allow a readied action and a acrobatics/jump check. (I'm not sure if its RAW or not, but it fits within the existing rules and is cool. It also rewards the those with high acrobatic checks, and especially monks.)
The player is standing in a 5 by 5 by 5 square.
A creature 5 feet above the ground above them or caddy corner to them is in another 5 by 5 by 5 square that is within reach. A creature 10 feet above them is not, same as a creature that is 10 feet away on the ground.
10 feet above them is 10 feet away. If something is 5 feet off the ground then it is 5 feet in the air. Your reach as a medium sized creature allows you to attack the square over your head just like you can attack the square directly in front of you. Both are considered to be 5 feet away.
If you the enemy moves another 5 feet back or 5 feet up they are now 10 feet away, and out of your reach.
10 feet off the ground, yes. That would be, in effect, the next square above the player's square. 10 feet above the player's square, no.
That is incorrect. If I can fly, and I go up 5 feet then I 5 feet off the ground and therefore I am in the square directly above where I was before I started to fly. If I go up another 10 feet then I am 10 feet off the ground which is 2 squares. I think some people are measuring from ground, but you are supposed to count from square to square.
edit:If the feet is confusing then count squares.
remember that you can jump...
jumping without a running start is very hard to do, but with some sort of running start,
achieving 5' vertical jump is certainly within the realm of possibility.
that lets you target the next 5' 'layer' of squares. lunge also works, as does thrown weapons.
you can also try climbing adjacent walls/structures (usually meaning 1handed weapons only),
or just tactically retreat/maneuver to where the setting doesn't disadvantage you...
that drow floating 10' up isn't likely to be threatening you either, unless they have a polearm.
EDIT: if you jump up, that is killing your Full Attacks unless you can Charge/Pounce, or you have such an awesome Jump/Acrobatics modifier that you can Standing High Jump without a Running Start (and thus just count the jump as a 5' step), but if you are limited to just a Standard Action (after jumping) you might want to Grapple the guy... (though the implications of that are vague if you want to run Grapple strictly RAW)
I encounter this question when I have flying creatures 10ft off the ground. Can you hit something that is 10ft off the ground with a non reach weapon?
Players say "well I'm 6ft tall and my arm is 3 feet long and my weapon is another 3ft so its logical I can reach"
HELP?
Tell your players that, though they may be 6 feet tall, their arms grow out of their bodies at the 4-5 feet mark. What's more, if they are really extending that swing over their head for that full 3 feet of arm length, they are not swinging in any accurate/balanced manner. Therefore, they don't really reach after all.
It's all abstracted for simplicity's sake anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
tell 'em they is stupid Gitz, and dat der target lifted its legs.
Unfortunately there is no actual RAW to go by here since the RAW is pathetically unclear in three dimensions.
However the vast majority of GMs extend the 2D rules into 3D and doing so would mean a medium creature would need a reach weapon to attack a creature ten feet off the ground.
The closest thing in the RAW that would allow this is the jump ability. But that too requires a GM ruling if the PC does not have a feat that allows them to attack in the middle of movement. By RAW even jumping they would not be able to attack until the jump is complete, when they would be back on the ground and out of reach.
+1 Orc Boyz.
I don't think Gravity 'interrupts' the transition from one Move Action to your next Standard Action.
That would allow 5' Stepping + 'free' Falling 100's of Feet + Full Attacking, for example.
You don't need to worry about 'Spring Attacking' if you only view the upward arc of the Jump as the character's own movement... They may or may not be using all of a Move Action for that, but that is no different than walking 10' along the ground, and then attacking. There is nothing in the RAW that says 'time passes' between your Move Action and the next Standard Action, so allowing the Standard Action to be taken from the position that you Moved to (in the air) is hardly a stretch.
The rules don't spell it out, but falling should logically happen at the end of a character's turn... Flyers have to make Fly checks not to fall, which they could conceivably do with an action at any point of their turn, so logically you have to wait until the turn is over to determine that they have not made their check... If the rules intended for making that check MUST be the very first action they take in their turn, it would have said so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see where the player is coming from, and I'd be annoyed too. I'm 6' tall... I'm sitting in room that has an 8' ceiling. When I reach up, I can touch the 8' ceiling without issue. If I had a 3' sword on the end of my hand, 10' above me is quite simply not high enough to be 'safe.'
However I beleive the RAW ruling is how the game was designed. but there are MANY cases where the 'rules' get in the way of common sense. It either needs to be 'house ruled' or flown as is to keep ocnsistency...
Still, I can understand why the player was annoyed by the ruling.
Phantom you have no more reach than a halfing which is about the size of a 5 year old child in Fantasyland. :)
Serious comment-->If you can reach 10 feet up though then you should be able to reach 10 feet ahead to maintain consistency even with a houserule.
To take it even further creatures like giants, and dragons would also have their reach changed on an individual basis. The way the game does it is more a matter of simplicity than anything else.
I can see where the player is coming from, and I'd be annoyed too. I'm 6' tall... I'm sitting in room that has an 8' ceiling. When I reach up, I can touch the 8' ceiling without issue. If I had a 3' sword on the end of my hand, 10' above me is quite simply not high enough to be 'safe.'
However I beleive the RAW ruling is how the game was designed. but there are MANY cases where the 'rules' get in the way of common sense. It either needs to be 'house ruled' or flown as is to keep ocnsistency...
Still, I can understand why the player was annoyed by the ruling.
On the other hand, would your attack be nearly as accurate if you were tickling the target's toes with the very tip of your sword rather than dashing right up to the bugger and bashing 'em somewhere you can get more leverage and further within your range of motion? Much easier to say no.
|
If you look closely under the Acrobatics section under skills, it says how high you can reach based on your size. A Medium creature can reach 8 feet high, so if something is 10 feet high, they still need to jump the additional 2 feet. Without a running start, that's a DC 16 Acrobatics check, just to reach the thing, not necessarily to attack it.
I'd allow them to make the Acrobatics check and one attack if the check succeeds as a full-round action.
|
though the books explain your reach in 5 feet and game play based on a 2 dimensional grid it is actually a functional 3 three dimensional game. easy enough to figure out.
you are a 5 foot cube 5x5x5. you threaten the 26 five foot cubes that surround you. usually barriers such as the ground stop you from taking any AoO against opponents that may reside in the bottom 9 cubes. when flying you threaten all squares around you. in turn enemies threaten the squares around them. this is why it is important to explain that the flying creature resides inside of the cubes located 10 feet above. (this happens to me my nape of the earth travel distance while flying and attempting to avoid other flying monsters) this would mean that if the monster were to lower 5 feet they would be in a square the player threatens and if they tried to leave again they would provoke an AoO.
someday through hologram technology we will have our 3 dimensional playing grid and all will be good until then it is best if you can come up with a way to represent how far your npcs are from the ground to explain to players why they cannot reach them.
On the other hand, would your attack be nearly as accurate if you were tickling the target's toes with the very tip of your sword rather than dashing right up to the bugger and bashing 'em somewhere you can get more leverage and further within your range of motion? Much easier to say no.I can see where the player is coming from, and I'd be annoyed too. I'm 6' tall... I'm sitting in room that has an 8' ceiling. When I reach up, I can touch the 8' ceiling without issue. If I had a 3' sword on the end of my hand, 10' above me is quite simply not high enough to be 'safe.'
However I beleive the RAW ruling is how the game was designed. but there are MANY cases where the 'rules' get in the way of common sense. It either needs to be 'house ruled' or flown as is to keep ocnsistency...
Still, I can understand why the player was annoyed by the ruling.
Yep!
Actually, it depends a LOT on 'how' they are flying. If someone is hovering at 10' with his feet pointing at you with all his vitals around the 13' range? Maybe not. if someone was flying horizontally at the 10' mark... they Yeah, my reach easily puts that soft underbelly in easy evisceration range ^_^
If you look closely under the Acrobatics section under skills, it says how high you can reach based on your size. A Medium creature can reach 8 feet high, so if something is 10 feet high, they still need to jump the additional 2 feet. Without a running start, that's a DC 16 Acrobatics check, just to reach the thing, not necessarily to attack it.
I'd allow them to make the Acrobatics check and one attack if the check succeeds as a full-round action.
Unless your holding a sword. That's a good 2-3' addition to your reach.
Which you WOULDN'T get if you were holding a dagger...
Which is really where the system falls apart. We just had a discussion the other day, about how odd it is that a 7' barbarian with a great sword or Great axe, has less reach than a halfling with a long spear/naginata sized for them...
The idea that my 7' guy only occupies a 5' vertical space seems a bit crazy to me...
That's a case for House rules. I really don't WANT a system that tells me EXACTLY how long a weapon is... how far you can reach combined with your height.. individuallized for every race/weapon combination...
the extra 2-3' just really don't matter that much.
If a 6'-7' fighter with a great axe wanted to take a swing at someone
swooping only 10' off the ground... I'd rule he could. If a Halfling with a short sword wanted to try it... I'd say it was out of reach.
Don't let standardized rules get in the way of fun for everyone. The book is generalized to work for ALL races and ALL weapons. If it doesn't make sense in your game, switch it up :)
The book is generalized to work for ALL races and ALL weapons
you git, da book is standardized to keep t'ings fair for every one, or elz some of dem featz wouldn't work.
Phantom: Just curious but what about a Monk fighting unarmed? He has the same reach as a Fighter with a sword, right? Could he also hit someone 10' up without jumping?
Phantom: Just curious but what about a Monk fighting unarmed? He has the same reach as a Fighter with a sword, right? Could he also hit someone 10' up without jumping?
I'm not sure..
I THINK I've seen some martial artists do some pretty impressive High kicks... flip kicks... various awesome things.
As a rule, I think unless they showed me a youtube clip of the attack their trying, I don't think I'd allow it.
A medium character has an 8 ft vertical reach. So to hit something 10 ft up, a DC 8 jump check would be required to clear the 2 ft with a vertical jump. Keep in mind the running start rules, that DC can easily end up being doubled to 16.
So, yes, with reasonable success, it is possible.
Use the 3E jump skill rules to reference vertical reach numbers. I have no idea why PF didn't include this useful information.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno... using youtube to support rules? Would you allow someone to play a 9' tall human then cause one existed at one point in the real world?
I guess some people run their rules based on what youtube and wikipedia says. Its just not my cup of tea.
ok... wait a sec.
clarification time.
F = floor
W = wall
- = empty 5 foot space
A = attacking creature
T = target
the attacking creature (A) with his back to the wall (W) is fighting a target (T)
WAT
in this case the attacker is in the 5 foot square next to the wall and the target is in the square 10 feet from the wall.
suppose the target takes a 5 foot step back
in the following situation how far from the wall is the target?
WA-T
using the first example he appears to be in the square 15 feet from the wall?
so flipping that on its side....
T
A
F
the target is in the square 10 feet off the floor... which is 5 feet from the creature attacking it.
thats how I see it at least.
It may be a matter of misscomunication.
if my GM said the creature is 10 feet off the floor I would think
T
-
F
which I could hit. I could not hit him if he was 15 feet off the floor which would be
T
-
-
F
I guess it comes down to is he at the top of the 5 to 10 foot square or at the bottom of the 10 to 15 foot square. which would require clarification.
|
Tell your players that, though they may be 6 feet tall, their arms grow out of their bodies at the 4-5 feet mark. What's more, if they are really extending that swing over their head for that full 3 feet of arm length, they are not swinging in any accurate/balanced manner. Therefore, they don't really reach after all.
Why don't we dangle you from and rope 10' off the ground and see if we can hit you with 3' long sticks.
I'm willing to bet money I can manage to get a few good shots in.
In my game we use a dice to track altitude, where Altitude 0 is in contact with the ground, and every pip on the dice represents a square (cube) above that which the creature's base is in. Saves arguments about "height above ground".
Can you hit something that is 10ft off the ground with a non reach weapon?
If by "10ft off the ground" the flyer means one square up ("ten feet from the surface of the ground to the top of my square"), then yes, you can hit them. If he means two squares up ("ten feet from the ground to the bottom of my square") then no, you can't hit him.
We understand reach from the top down, it's basically the same thing from the side.
Don't forget that the flying target isn't necessarily vertical. If we're talking about fly, there's no reason why the target couldn't be in a Superman pose. His feet aren't dangling down. He's occupying a 5ft square but he may be at the highest extent of it, leaving his lowest body part as high as 13 feet up.
I just measured. I'm about 5ft 10in. Reaching my arm as far as I can, fingertips are a little less than 8ft from flat feet. Unless I've got a 5ft sword, I'm not hitting the flying guy.
That said, as a DM I do adjudicate this sort of stuff reasonably. If I know the flying person really is within reach, I'll abstract it and allow an attack. But it isn't a given. Medium creatures are considered 5ft tall, not 10ft tall, and they threaten to a distance of 10ft from their feet (a.k.a. one square above them).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am quite lax about this.
Usually I allow a short jump at an slight attack roll penalty.
The barbarian in my party is quite capable of an 8' vertical leap. Trivial for her, even.
Honestly, as GM, if my monsters don't want to get hit, they don't come anywhere near reasonable jumping distance, and that includes 10' (when fighting any sort of humanoid, not my freakish barbarian friend).
The way the rules are written, with meat-cubes and whatnot, this is not allowed. But rules that impede my ability as GM to describe a thrilling, action packed battle in favor of some notion of "balance" are swiftly vetoed.
What is the consequence to the game if you allow this? Flying monsters must exercise judgement when flying above hostile forces.
What is the benefit of the "five-foot meat cube" approach? It 'prevents argument' — except not really because the group must stop, discuss, and resolve to defy the logical description of events in favor of an extremely abstract interpretation of rules.
Carry on being a slave to the rulebooks if you like, friends. I want the player characters in my campaign to take the swing.
Actually,
The rules perfectly allow you to jump straight up and attack something.
You make an acrobatics check. The DC for an acrobatic's check to jump up 5 ft is 20 (30 if you can't do a 10 foot move first to gain momentum). If he's 10 ft off the ground, you move 10 ft and make an acrobatics DC 20 check to jump up 5 ft. This leaves you in position to attack him, immediately prior to landing. If you are a monk, you don't even have to move, you just jump straight up (more than likely, you can hit the DC 40 to jump up 10 feet if needed).
Now, the GM might want to assess an attack of opportunity on you as you leave a threatened square without taking a 5 ft step.
Now, the GM might want to assess an attack of opportunity on you as you leave a threatened square without taking a 5 ft step.
That part makes semantic sense to me: air superiority, right?
Yep. Make an acrobatics check and grapple. Seen it done. Good stuff.
If you look closely under the Acrobatics section under skills, it says how high you can reach based on your size. A Medium creature can reach 8 feet high, so if something is 10 feet high, they still need to jump the additional 2 feet. Without a running start, that's a DC 16 Acrobatics check, just to reach the thing, not necessarily to attack it.
I'd allow them to make the Acrobatics check and one attack if the check succeeds as a full-round action.
I just looked closely at the entirely of the rules in the Acrobatics skill and I saw nothing about the reach of creatures. Can you point this out to me?
I've ruled that 5-foot reach applies to all medium and small creatures in all dimensions, as these are the only rules in the book I can find relating to reach. If the feet of a creature are 10 feet off the ground (meaning he's occupying the square between 10 and 15 feet off the ground), a PC without a reach weapon cannot hit him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now you are wishing you took a pike.
|
I tend to stick to the abstract RAW interpretation since I like to see players switch up their styles once in a while and think about how to defeat an enemy.
Ignoring jumping, which is a dubious tactic RAW, there are lots of ways to hit that monster 10' off the ground.
1)Reach and Range weapons. Even a 1st level character can manage a 5gp Longspear or at least a 0gp sling. Both are simple weapons most PCs can use.
2)Feats. Lunge or "the one that lets you hit monsters that are attacking you but I can't remember the name of".
3)Magic. Fly is the obvious solution, but there are loads of options here for a mid-level party.
There are many options to let PCs hit an enemy 10' up in strict RAW. Fudging to bend the rules cheapens the above options and reduces the tactical appeal of the game IMO. A normally melee PC who says they "can't do anything" in this situation just isn't thinking hard enough.
Now, the GM might want to assess an attack of opportunity on you as you leave a threatened square without taking a 5 ft step.That part makes semantic sense to me: air superiority, right?
*grin*
I dunno... using youtube to support rules? Would you allow someone to play a 9' tall human then cause one existed at one point in the real world?
I guess some people run their rules based on what youtube and wikipedia says. Its just not my cup of tea.
Not all of Youtube, just the professional Russian guy who says "f#%#ink ullsim!" all the time.