|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. No you cannot attack someone 5' away with a reach weapon.
2. Yes but the creature/person being attacked has cover
3. Same as number 1
4. Yes
Most of it is common sense. Try wrapping your head around attacking diagonally with reach weapons at distances greater than 10 feet.
|
Well I'll try to help you out a little bit. First thing to remember is that combat in Pathfinder is not based upon very unrealistic kung-fu movies. It's based upon older editions of games and eventually back into historical war gaming. People can't effectively fight up close with pikes and traditionally pole-arm carrying soldiers also had some kind of backup weapon for when they got into extremely close quarters (short swords, etc.) The pole-arm is the most fundamental category of reach weapon.
With most reach weapons you cannot attack adjacent targets. One can attack through an ally's square though the ally will provide cover for the target similar to ranged combat (This is a point I might be wrong about!) Your #1 and #3 seem to ask the same thing. #4 if your not in your opponent's threatening area then they cannot perform AOO's upon you. You can still be tripped/disarmed on a failed by 10 or more situation of course.
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
So, no, you cannot attack a creature within 5 feet ... which is also an adjacent enemy, so 1 and 3 are the same question.
For 4, you can only make an attack of opportunity into a square you threaten, so yes, if you use a reach weapon to make a trip, disarm, or sunder maneuver and the target doesn't have reach, they can't take the AoO.
The answer to question 2 is found under the cover rules. A creature between you and your target, whether friendly or not, provides soft cover to it (+4 AC to ranged attacks). Since reach weapons use the cover rules for ranged weapons, you can attack through an ally's square, but your target gets a +4 AC bonus.
Thank you..
Adjacent: think the not attacking adjacent ridiculous. I thought this was fixed in 3.5? they didnt add in the common sense rule to pathfinder? Just allowing adjacent makes everything easyer.
So.. now if someone comes at me diagonally i cannot attack them and I get no AOO????!!!
5ft Rule: I can see how if you were attacking within 5 feet you would be at a disadvantage but having absolutely no way to attack at all? come on...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where does it say that you use the reach weapon as a range weapon in terms of soft cover?
Under Cover, in the Combat section.
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
It seems everything is resolved here, but for extra credit we'll think about this:
There's a weird rules ambiguity with reach weapons where you could use them as Improvised Weapons and club people that are adjacent.
This doesn't seem to be the intent of the designers since it was a concerted effort on their part to remove the ability to attack adjacent enemies from Reach Weapons, but there is no current restrictions on what is or is not able to be Improvised.
The Monk of the Empty hand Archetype implies use of any weapon as an improvised weapon is "normal" practice but you should definitely talk with your GM if you plan on attempting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can attack at a Diagonal 2 squares away, it's a specific exception to the normal rules.
Bigkilla is right..
Ninja the rule you are talking about was a 3.5 rule to clear s&%% up..
So now.. as it turns out a dude can just move diagonl/adjacent against you
and not only can you not attack but you do not get a aoo..
.. lol. now i know what to do to piss off the dm when i see a enemy with a reach weapon.
Ninja also.. if it the way you are saying.. why would they put cannot attack adjacent in reach weapon category?
That reach template has been posted twice now.. yet you still cannot use it because it goes against the rule in pathfinder right?
What you are saying would not work. you would not get an AOO because you do not threaten Adjacent squares because you cannot attack Adjacent squares..
so if a guy comes at me adjacent i cant attack him and I dont get an aoo because I cant attack him. The best I can do is let him swing then drop my reach weapon and hit him with gauntlets.. or spike armor .. or something.
I wish it worked the way the reach template suggested. It then would work like the 3.5 variant rule. but as of now you would have to make this rule a house rule.
.. or am i wrong?
EDIT: to convince my dm of the rule I have to have a hard fact to go off of. not just some random guys quote. no offense, just letting ya know.
You cannot attack adjacent targets. Adjacent = all 5' squares touching the character's square.
A medium creature with a reach weapon cannot attack the 3x3 box around them without a non-reach weapon or other ability/feat exception.
Although for terms of movement and range you usually count the 1st diagonal as 5' and the 2nd as 10', reach weapons have a specific exception. So, a medium character threatens the entire 4x4 box around them, to avoid the diagonal charge that nonsensically would otherwise bypass their reach.
The AoO for movement happens when moving out of a threatened square, and happens before they finish moving out of that square.
I'm having trouble finding the quote for it, but I remember this being clarified as continuing to be the case in PF.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Things to keep in mind:
1) Many things in 3.5/Pathfinder are counter-intuitive or not realistic. Keep in mind that we're playing an imaginary game where we pretend to be elves fighting dragons with magic, so reality isn't a good jumping off point, per se.
2) Reach weapons (out of the box) can't attack any adjacent squares (adjacent mean "next to," which means squares touching the square you occupy). You can attack diagonal squares that are 2 squares away. Otherwise, you would have a weird situation where you could walk up to an opponent with a reach weapon if you approached them diagonally.
3) reach weapons can't attack adjacent squares for purely game balance reasons. If they could attack adjacent and reach squares, they would be waaay better than non-reach weapons to the point where non-reach weapons would be meaningless options (or non-options, really).
-Skeld
|
|
A medium creature has 8 squares that surround it on a grid. Each of those squares is adjacent and within 5 feet. The next block of 16 squares around that is 10 feet away even diagonals when it comes to both natural reach and reach weapons.
Don't confuse the movement rules with reach rules, which are an exception to counting out squares.
If a creature gets adjacent to you he is inside your reach and you can't attack with a reach weapon. There are many options to deal with this; 5' step away, acrobatics to tumble away, armor spikes or a spiked gauntlet, etc.
Tell your GM to read the core rulebook combat chapter again, you should do that too. You'll be amazed at what you think you know and what the actual rules are. I probably reread combat every other month or so.
--Schoolhouse Vrock
Thank you for clearing up Adjacent. I kept thinking diagonal..
Sorry for being suborn to the people that tried to explain it to me before lol.
This is the same as it was in 3.5
Guess everything is now clear.
thanks
anyway you can give me a reference to show my DM that reach weapons do not use the conventional movement diagonals as 10 but as 5?
Thanks again guys. I really appreciate the help.
EDIT:
Thanks again. Ill go ahead and talk to the GM and REREAD those sections to be clear.
2) Reach weapons (out of the box) can't attack any adjacent squares (adjacent mean "next to," which means squares touching the square you occupy). You can attack diagonal squares that are 2 squares away. Otherwise, you would have a weird situation where you could walk up to an opponent with a reach weapon if you approached them diagonally.
It's a world where bishops are kings.
GENETICDRIFT!.. dude.. your killing me
ROFL I thought I had this all wrapped up and now you tell me that we are all wrong?
lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Standard 10' reach weapons do not threaten the 2nd diagonal square in Pathfinder.
They did in 3.5, but the rule providing that exception was not carried over into PFRPG.
As for what the rules actually say:
Measuring Distance: "As a general rule, distance is measured assuming that 1 square equals 5 feet."
Diagonals: "When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on."
Two diagonals equal three squares. Three 5-foot squares is 15 feet. If you don't have 15' reach, you can't attack it, and don't threaten that square. Illustration.
As for what the developers say:
1. Can you or can you not attack diagonally at a distance of 2x squares (15'=10' exception) with a reach weapon?Nope. 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.
I suspect I might have ruled wrong on how reach works, but it makes logical sense to me. If you prefer to have reach fill an entire area around you rather than leave "holes" in the corners, that's fine. That's how most people rule it, I believe, and the sky hasn't fallen yet so it's probably okay. :-)
Reach, in my opinion, should work into diagonal squares, though. For what that's worth.
No special diagonal rule = square fireballs. :(
The Polearm Master archetype gains the ability to "short-haft" and attack enemies next to them.
You can also use the haft as an Improvised weapon, taking a -4 penalty to hit but letting you bash at someone next to you. Most GMs rule that a weapon haft does damage as a club.
Catch Off Guard can negate the Improvised Weapon penalty.
Either way, a creature moving from diagonal square 2, into your diagonal square 1 is still moving through your threatened area and provokes before the enter the adjacent square.
Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn... An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
Squares, not area.
The 1st diagonal square is 5' away, and you do not threaten it. The 2nd diagonal square is 15' away, and you do not threaten it. A creature approaching on the direct diagonal never leaves a threatened square, and thus does not provoke.
I use the same reach house rules as you, and I'm especially pleased JJ came around, but it is a house rule.
Grick..
that is what I was saying also. At least someone else agrees with me lol
NullVOID:
1) Reach weapons threaten squares 10feet away and not adjacent (5feet) squares.
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.
2) IF a creature moves from 10feet away to adjacent you may make an Attack of Opportunity before they leave the threatened square.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
3) Corners are 15feet away.
BUT, since the exception from 3.5 that allowed people to attack those squares with a reach weapon is not present in PF many people houserule that rule back into existence. Failure to houserule it creates an odd situation where a creature can come at the reach weapon user without suffering an Attack of Opportunity.
Current rule:
Diagonals: When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on.
3.5 rule:
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons (such as a longspear) threaten more squares than a typical creature. For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens 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.)
Personally, my group uses the 3.5 rule since it prevents 'dead areas' that do not make any sense.
Regarding using a reach weapon as a short-haft improvised weapon. Nothing in the rules specifically allows this. The rules do state multiple times that a reach weapon cannot be used to attack adjacent targets.
There are two classes that I am aware of that can short haft a reach weapon. The Dragooon (fighter archetype) can shorthaft a lance at level 7 and the Polearm Master can shorthaft any polearm at level 2.
There is also several weapons which have variable settings that can change from a reach to non-reach weapon.
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So the current rule is:
"Diagonals: When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on."
Which means that 2nd diagonal square counts as 15ft -AND- 10ft, which means you should threaten when an opponent tries to move into the 1st diagonal square. If it only counted as 15ft, it would say it only counts as one square.
Standard 10' reach weapons do not threaten the 2nd diagonal square in Pathfinder.
They did in 3.5, but the rule providing that exception was not carried over into PFRPG.
As for what the rules actually say:
Measuring Distance: "As a general rule, distance is measured assuming that 1 square equals 5 feet."
Diagonals: "When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on."
Two diagonals equal three squares. Three 5-foot squares is 15 feet. If you don't have 15' reach, you can't attack it, and don't threaten that square. Illustration.
As for what the developers say:
1. Can you or can you not attack diagonally at a distance of 2x squares (15'=10' exception) with a reach weapon?Nope. 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.I suspect I might have ruled wrong on how reach works, but it makes logical sense to me. If you prefer to have reach fill an entire area around you rather than leave "holes" in the corners, that's fine. That's how most people rule it, I believe, and the sky hasn't fallen yet so it's probably okay. :-)Reach, in my opinion, should work into diagonal...
Wow. learn something new everyday.
|
I like the idea of allowing the use of the improvised weapon rule for reach weapons. I am thinking of using the guidelines below. For the GMs on this thread, do these (house) rules make sense:
A character is assumed to always be using a reach weapon normally (10' reach). If they wish to use it as a improvised weapon (5' reach), they must use a swift action to adjust the grip. They must also use a swift action to change it from improvised to normal.
Bonuses from magic weapons/feats/class abilities/etc (other than those specifically related to improvised weapons) are not applicable when using the weapon improvised.
RedDogMT: Not a bad idea except it detracts from the Fighter-Polearm Master archetype (immediate action, -4attack penalty that goes down over time) on the one hand and a feat tree on the other.
The Dorn Dergar is a dwarven weapon (Exotic Weapon) that with a move action can be switched from reach to non-reach and back. A second feat changes it from move to swift action.
I would base it off of the feats. One feat to make it a move action transition. A second to make it a swift action.
- Gauss
|
If you have are using a magic pole arm and are worried about an enemy closing on you in melee invest in the transformitive enchatmnet costs 10k gp, I have a dwarven inquistor that has a hefty magic glaive that has the tranformitve enchantment and it has saved his butt several times when an enemy closed on him in melee.
Lou Diamond: Transformative requires a standard action. It is easier to take a 5foot step and whack the guy. Alternately, there are several archetypes or weapon-feat combos that allow a person to switch from reach to adjacent.
- Gauss
There are 2 arguments in favor of "The 10' Exception"
The semantic: "diagonals count double" is introduced under Movement in the combat chapter. Spell area effects reference back to that in the magic chapter. The descriptions of reach under equipment and under large creatures do NOT reference that ruling, and are not related to movement and AoE.
The legalistic: The actual laws as they are currently written are not the sole source of jurisprudence. The 10´exception existed in earlier editions. It has not been specifically invalidated, neither in the law (core rulebook) or the pre- or post-law material (years and years of blog posts and designer statements). Furthermore, the book has examples of reach, none of which invalidate the 10' exception.
So far, not a strong case. But look at this:
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. This attack of opportunity is not provoked if you take a 5-foot step.
To summarize: The rules plainly state that result X is the intended outcome. Method Y used to produce outcome X. Method Y is not specifically in the new edition, but it's not specifically out either, despite several examples and illustrations offering the opportunity to illustrate the nullification of method Y. Therefore, method Y (10' exception) is still valid.
Counterargument: The usual "assumption of perfection". But that's a weak argument, especially in the face of the quoted paragraph.
EDIT: The quoted text has "usually". Given Spring Attack, Ride-by Attack, cover, concealment and exhausted #AoO as exceptions, I think it's fair to say that "usually" should not be taken to mean "unless approached diagonally".
There are a number of feats and archetypes that step on the toes of other rules. Just because one combination does things a certain way doesn't mean another can't deal with the same issue in an arguably better way.
The only real difference between being a polearm master and fixing it with feats is that polearm masters save a feat by getting the payoff later.
Personally I prefer the feat investment.
Doomed Hero: I wasn't saying that someone shouldn't create such a feat. I am saying what it should be compared it to. Just handing EVERYONE the ability to do what normally takes a class ability or feat chain detracts from those classes and feats.
- Gauss
Except that Catch Off Guard is a Core book feat. It can't be stepping on anything's toes if it was there first.
Not all archetypes are equal. Polearm master is particularly bad. Even if your GM decides that for some reason you just can't *ever* bash with the haft, you're still better off playing a Two Handed Fighter and getting Armor Spikes to threaten up close.
Hexes cause issues with flanking.
|
|
So the current rule is:
"Diagonals: When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on."Which means that 2nd diagonal square counts as 15ft -AND- 10ft, which means you should threaten when an opponent tries to move into the 1st diagonal square. If it only counted as 15ft, it would say it only counts as one square.
This is an interesting point and is worth looking into a bit more. I'm going to FAQ your post.
So the current rule is:
"Diagonals: When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on."Which means that 2nd diagonal square counts as 15ft -AND- 10ft, which means you should threaten when an opponent tries to move into the 1st diagonal square. If it only counted as 15ft, it would say it only counts as one square.
The second counts as 2 squares of distance. The square is not ten feet to a side.
So to measure the distance between the Elf and the Goblin that is 2 diagonals away, you measure the first diagonal (1 square, thus 5'), then measure the second diagonal (2 squares, thus 10') then add them together to get the distance. The goblin is 3 squares away, which is 15'.
If the second diagonal is both 10' and 15' away, then you could move into the second diagonal if you only had 10' of movement. This is not the case.
The semantic: "diagonals count double" is introduced under Movement in the combat chapter.
The section is "Movement, Position, And Distance"
The descriptions of reach under equipment and under large creatures do NOT reference that ruling, and are not related to movement and AoE.
Reach weapons do refer to distance.
When the rules say "With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away" there must be some way of determining if a foe is 10 feet away. Thus you must look to the section on how to determine distance.
The legalistic: The actual laws as they are currently written are not the sole source of jurisprudence. The 10´exception existed in earlier editions. It has not been specifically invalidated, neither in the law (core rulebook) or the pre- or post-law material (years and years of blog posts and designer statements).
The 3.5 rule stated that it was an exception to the rules: "This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet."
This means without that exception, you would not threaten the 2nd diagonal. That rule was not copied into Pathfinder RPG, this means, by the very rule you're citing, you do not threaten the 2nd diagonal.
Furthermore, it has been specifically invalidated by a designer who has stated how it works. (As well as his eventual opinion on how it should work)
To summarize: The rules plainly state that result X is the intended outcome. Method Y used to produce outcome X. Method Y is not specifically in the new edition, but it's not specifically out either, despite several examples and illustrations offering the opportunity to illustrate the nullification of method Y. Therefore, method Y (10' exception) is still valid.
Illogical conclusion.
In 3.5, you could use your opponents weapon to attack them while grappling. This rule is not in PFRPG. There is no reason to assume that specific rule is still valid, even though the result (attacking a foe while grappled) is still in place.