Flanking with a Reach weapon


Rules Questions


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm trying to pin this down as its going to be very relevant in our upcoming campaign.
.
.
.
.
Each number represents a 5' square:

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
B1 Ft Or B4 B5
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

There is a sword-wielding Fighter in square B2 (Ft) and an orc in square B3 (Or). From which squares would a second fighter with a reach weapon be considered flanking with the first?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

B5

The other character has to threaten the enemy so that Ft can flank. A reach weapon threatens 10 ft out but not the 5ft distance.

If the 2nd fighter has a spiked gauntlet or something too, then he also threatens from B4 obviously as normal.


Quatar wrote:

B5

The other character has to threaten the enemy so that Ft can flank. A reach weapon threatens 10 ft out but not the 5ft distance.

If the 2nd fighter has a spiked gauntlet or something too, then he also threatens from B4 obviously as normal.

I'm not asking about threatening, I'm asking about flanking...


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

B5.

B4 is too close. Everything else is either not directly across from the Fighter, or too far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Story Archer wrote:
Quatar wrote:

B5

The other character has to threaten the enemy so that Ft can flank. A reach weapon threatens 10 ft out but not the 5ft distance.

If the 2nd fighter has a spiked gauntlet or something too, then he also threatens from B4 obviously as normal.

I'm not asking about threatening, I'm asking about flanking...

Can't do one with out the other. If you don't threaten you can't give a flanking bonus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

B5.

You sunk my battleship!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Flanking requires threatening. So... They are similar questions, ya know?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, you would flank from A5, B5 or C5.

Quote:
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

You'll note that the line from the centre of A5 to B2 passes through the top corner (exactly) of B3 which counts for flanking. The same argument holds for flanking from C5

Sczarni

A similar situation came up in a game I once played. Here's a follow-up question: if the polearm wielder is in B5, but one of his allies is in B4 providing cover to the orc (because he thinks there's been a misunderstanding, or because the orc successfully bluffed him) is the orc still flanked? is a polearm wielder succeptible to someone "running interference" like that?

Liberty's Edge

You could almost make the argument for A5 and C5 as well...depending on how you read the reach weapon rules. A reach weapon threatens squares 10' away...so, like thus:

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
C1 C2 RW C4 C5
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5

The PC at RW either threatens all the squares in rows A and E, plus all the squares numbered 1 and 5 (see below)...
Fig. 1
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
B1 X X X B5
C1 X RW X C5
D1 X X X D5
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5

-OR-

The PC in RW threatens all the perimeter Squares EXCEPT A1, A5, E1, and E5 (see below)...
Fig. 2
X A2 A3 A4 X
B1 X X X B5
C1 X RW X C5
D1 X X X D5
X E2 E3 E4 X

If you go with the Fig. 1, I believe a straight line drawn from a corner of the (original) squares labeled A5 and C5 would pass through opposite sides of the square with the orc, thus granting flanking. If you agree with Fig. 2, though, then flanking would only occur from (original) square B5.

EDIT: Sorry the formatting is screwed up...


Your figure 1 is correct, though hard to read: Templates


Silent Saturn wrote:
A similar situation came up in a game I once played. Here's a follow-up question: if the polearm wielder is in B5, but one of his allies is in B4 providing cover to the orc (because he thinks there's been a misunderstanding, or because the orc successfully bluffed him) is the orc still flanked? is a polearm wielder succeptible to someone "running interference" like that?

You threaten all squares into which you can make an attack and a creature is flanked if it is threatened from opposite sides. Now, despite being flanked, the polearm wielder can't actually take an AoO due to the cover.


Tem is correct: A5, B5 & C5.

The line joining the centres of B2 and A5 passes through the top-right corner of B3.


PRD wrote:
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Emphasis mine.

So, yes, A5, B5 and C5 are all valid squares for flanking the poor Orc in A3.

Note, however, that if we had a fighter with a polearm at A1 (instead of the 'normal' fighter at A2), the only valid choice for our right side polearm fighter would become A5.

To ramp up the difficulty a bit, you might check the situation when large creatures come into play, as a large (or larger) flanker may use the center of any of his squares to check for a flanking line.


hmm, doesn't "opposite borders" mean borders that are opposite from one another, as opposed to adjacent? i read the caveat of "(including corners of those borders)" to mean that going through opposite corners also counts, but it's written in such a way, that i wouldn't really argue with the ruling in either way.


elgabalawi wrote:
hmm, doesn't "opposite borders" mean borders that are opposite from one another, as opposed to adjacent?

Yes, that's what opposite means. The top and side of a square are not opposite.

elgabalawi wrote:
i read the caveat of "(including corners of those borders)" to mean that going through opposite corners also counts

Also correct. You must include corners or you couldn't flank from diagonals. (Ex: C1 and A3 flanking B2)


elgabalawi wrote:
hmm, doesn't "opposite borders" mean borders that are opposite from one another, as opposed to adjacent?

This is correct.

Quote:
i read the caveat of "(including corners of those borders)" to mean that going through opposite corners also counts, but it's written in such a way, that i wouldn't really argue with the ruling in either way.

All it is clarifying is that the corner is part of the border. The corner is a point where two adjacent borders overlap, and is part of both borders as a result.


Tem wrote:
Your figure 1 is correct, though hard to read: Templates

Actually it's figure 2. Those templates are incorrect. The Editor's Note quoted on that page spells it out:

James Jacobs wrote:
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.


For additional context:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It's an artifact of the grid. The closest the rules come to addressing this is in Large, Huge, Gargantuan, and Colossal Creatures, which says:

Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature with greater than normal natural reach (more than 5 feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it. A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it.

So just because the grid has a square for "15 feet away" and a square for "5 feet away," but no square for "10 feet away," using that corner path doesn't mean you're magically teleporting from 15 feet to 5 feet; you are passing through a 10-foot-radius band around the creature, and therefore you provoke an AOO.

Jason admits it's not clear, and obviously it doesn't have the diagram in the 3E book to provide a non-textual example, but it's supposed to work as I described above.

Therefore when I say the templates on d20PFSRD are incorrect, I mean specifically that reach never violates the normal distance rules. 10ft reach does not threaten 15ft corners, and this does not affect a pike-weilder's ability to defend from approachers. Insisting that reaching corners is necessary because it would otherwise leave "holes" is a symptom of abstractionitis.

Liberty's Edge

B5 only


Mx. Bug is correct. in Pathfinder the 3.5 exception reach rule does not apply. So you can't attack reach weapon down a diagonal hallway. It is really stupid and your open and you currently don't get AOO from your digonal spots also. A lot of people want to this to be offical changed and added to the rules but the most we got so far S.K.R. saying that you should get the AOO as you still threatens part of the square if a creature moves through it but for nothing else.

see this thread.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p5qy?Poll-Reach-Weapons-and-the-2nd-diagonal-D o#1


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KainPen wrote:

Mx. Bug is correct. in Pathfinder the 3.5 exception reach rule does not apply. So you can't attack reach weapon down a diagonal hallway. It is really stupid and your open and you currently don't get AOO from your digonal spots also. A lot of people want to this to be offical changed and added to the rules but the most we got so far S.K.R. saying that you should get the AOO as you still threatens part of the square if a creature moves through it but for nothing else.

see this thread.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p5qy?Poll-Reach-Weapons-and-the-2nd-diagonal-D o#1

As a reasonable rule, please apply the 3.5 exception to home games :).


The pole arm master fighter archetype gets flexible flanker which certainly helps to resolve flanking.


KainPen wrote:

Mx. Bug is correct. in Pathfinder the 3.5 exception reach rule does not apply. So you can't attack reach weapon down a diagonal hallway. It is really stupid and your open and you currently don't get AOO from your digonal spots also. A lot of people want to this to be offical changed and added to the rules but the most we got so far S.K.R. saying that you should get the AOO as you still threatens part of the square if a creature moves through it but for nothing else.

see this thread.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p5qy?Poll-Reach-Weapons-and-the-2nd-diagonal-D o#1

FWIW, I specifically mentioned while quoting SKR that you do get diagonal AoO's. By the same reasoning I'd argue that you can also charge diagonally with a longspear (and end up 5ft away, after the attack). The fact that standard diagonal attacks aren't allowed is a potential problem, yes, but many other problems could also be solved by simply not drawing 5-ft wide diagonal paths (or going hexagonal or gridless... *duck*).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Flanking with a Reach weapon All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.