So which do you think is better and more rational for the game system? The state where you can approach from the diagonal (through the range of their weapon) and inexplicably not trigger an AoO or the state where you could stand at the 15' diagonal (outside of their 10' reach) and provoke by drinking a potion?
Irrelevant. The problem isn't the specific rule, it is that what Sean describes contradicts the RAW. It's also quite clear from reading this thread that exactly NO ONE was doing things this the way, making it obvious that Errata (or at least a FAQ entry) is required...and haphazard message board posts are not a sensible medium for either.
Failure to comprehend the principal is due to nothing else than lack of imagination... and if that's the case, some people need to seriously reconsider their hobbies.
Naturally...because the only possible explanation for seeing thing differently than you do is a lack of imagination.
We're done.
bugleyman, if you really want a number to place on how many people have been using the 3.5 exception (ie: not doing it this way) I created a poll where the ratio is currently up to 64 people who use the 3.5 rule vs 6 who do not (discounting one person who voted both yes and no).
- Gauss
|
@Kazaan; since the 'phantom' 10-foot square overlaps the 15-foot square, and since a creature occupies the entirity of its square for purposes of being targetted (c.f. a medium creature riding a large mount is considered to occupy all four squares), then that 10-foot reach is enough to threaten that second diagonal!
You can't have it both ways. The phantom 10-foot square either overlaps both the 5-foot square AND the 15-foot square, or ot doesn't! Which is it?
bugleyman, if you really want a number to place on how many people have been using the 3.5 exception (ie: not doing it this way) I created a poll where the ratio is currently up to 64 people who use the 3.5 rule vs 6 who do not (discounting one person who voted both yes and no).
- Gauss
Of those six, I wonder how many, prior to this thread, granted an AoO for passing though the (unthreatened) corner square.
My bet is none.
|
While I prefer the 3.5 rules, I will accept the ruling on reach weapoms and the diagonals. However as a Greater Trip user, where does a successfully tripped enemy provoke? I agree that they should land in the originating diagonal square following the trip, and that the tripper should get an OA as part of that action. But what about other PCs who are also entitled to an OA? Do they receive it on the 5' or the 15' square? By the way, I also agree that since a character/creature occupies the entire square and should therefore be reachable on the diagonal, the 3.5 rule makes more sense. Regardless, where does the tripped opponent provoke from others?
However as a Greater Trip user, where does a successfully tripped enemy provoke?
I posted here and SKR posted here that it sounds right, that when you greater trip someone in the 2nd diagonal on an AoO caused by them moving towards you, the trip happens in the 2nd diagonal (phantom square) and that's where they fall prone. The AoO provoked by falling is not caused by movement towards you, so it happens in the 'real' 2nd diagonal which is 15 feet away and thus out of your reach. The same as when the tripped character stands up and provokes, he's also doing so outside you reach.
There's a graphical example in my next post under SKR's (here).
-edit- which, it turns out, is NOT what I said in that post. I said you would be able to take the AoO from greater trip (since it happens while the trip is happening and thus while the foe occupies the phantom square) but you could NOT take the AoO provoked when he stands up. So... FAQ it, I guess?
I think there will be a big flurry of activity by the rules team soon, hopefully this will be a part of it. (YAY for SKR posting in the rules forum again!)
I find using 3.5 much eassier, cleanier than the proposal phantom square. Lots of hassle and messing with stuff that can be avoided, like where do you fall prone etc.
|
|
I understand where the tripper gets his/her OA. What I don't understand is where the OA occurs for others during the trip process. Everyone within (legal) reach gets an OA when someone/thing is tripped using Greater Trip. Does one have to be next to the 5' square or the 15' square to receive their OA, or must they be by both? I need to be able to tell my DM/GM since it is unlikely he/she will have read this particular thread. Thanks.
Ultra-tricky means of adjudication.
Carefully lift all miniatures off the board, maintaining relative positions and distances. Rotate the map grid 45 degrees. Replace the miniatures and (as necessary) redraw the map. Repeat whenever needed.
Oddly (not), this removes the phantom square problem, by replacing it with a real square.
Or you could jut use SKR's method and fairly adjudicate the complex problems that might crop up.
|
|
Another question regarding positioning is where does a character/creature wind up following a successful OA using Stand Still when the OA occurs in the phantom 10' square (between the real 5' and the real 15' squares). According to the feat description, they must end movement immediately. This would normally allow an attack against them by the user of the feat (on their own turn), but not if the victim is returned to the 15' square. This is another example of the current ruling for reach weapons requiring a juggling of the existing rules. A return to the 3.5 exception for reach weapons would make all of this so much easier. It would also provide the same advantage that is allowed for creatures/monsters with reach. Regardless, a FAQ with examples and diagrams would really be appreciated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand why there is no errata issued to change this to the 3.5 rule. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but hear me out on the argument. Here's how I see it (forgive the drawn out explanation, I think it helps):
1) SKR Method:
The SKR method is based on a ruling that deals specifically with this situation in which something needs to be done.
Bugleyman brings up a good point, that SKR's method would then naturally extend to the facing abstraction and others, and now what do we do about that? But, nothing is really making you extend it to the other abstractions in the game. The only reason any of this is an issue is because you (players and GMs) generally agree that this specific abstraction (the AoOs and reach) crosses a certain intangible threshold and we need to do something about it.
2) 3.5 Exception Rule Method
The 3.5 solution changes the rules of the game, now treating a distance of 15 as 10 feet if it's diagonal, when holding a reach weapon. I think it's this that Paizo may not really like - because it affects other aspects of the game in a way you really cannot choose to ignore.
Just as an example, With RAW, a spell caster standing on that second diagonal, can cast a spell with a 15ft cone and hit the NPC holding the reach weapon. The NPC with reach cannot take an AoO on that caster, and cannot attack that caster without moving to re-position and bring the caster within 10ft. This is how it's supposed to work - the caster's 15ft effect should extend to and hit the NPC, the NPC's reach weapon of 10ft should not threaten the caster. And the reason is because they are 15ft apart.
Using the 3.5 exception rule is perfectly reasonable, and I don't think many would argue with that. The example given earlier with all the tripping is a good one. BUT, you're now changing the way that the caster example is affected by a reach weapon. This caster situation described here is now reversed (i.e. he will provoke, and can be attacked) because of a rule that was changed only to make a completely different grid anomaly issue easier to deal with. It effectively shifts the problem to another situation that maybe you never run into but others do. Now, instead of the reach AoO situation needing a ruling since it doesn't make sense, you have a spell-range AoO situation that doesn't make sense.
And it's likely most GMs may not care. Yeah, if you run into the reach weapon thing 99 times vs. the caster range thing 1 out of 100 - of course you're going to want to house the 3.5 rule, I probably would.
But my point here is - the SKR method, while technically ignoring the RAW, since under RAW there is no provoking that can happen, doesn't force you into any other changes as you are not bound by any external force to accept either all or no grid abstraction anomalies. The 3.5 method, while making this much easier, necessarily alters other situations in the game since reach weapons are now better under the new RAW. (And, if any of those situations cause yet another anomaly crossing that intangible threshold, you'll now be in the same place you started even though you've changed the RAW.)
Again - not an argument against the 3.5 rule, just a shot at explaining what might be going on in the minds of those that help make the rules.
|
|
SKR's intent is constructive, but does not solve the problem of the reach weapon wielder in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor being unable to attack!
People will choose the solution that works! The 3.5 rule works, the PF rule doesn't! Until PF comes up with a rule that addresses all the holes then we'll continue to use the 3.5 rule that worked so well for 1000 years!
Well, since the last millennium, anyway. And a millennium is 1000 years.
|
|
Here's a very simple compromise. A hybrid of SKR's method and the 3.5 method. If you're on the 15' diagonal square and move towards an opponent with reach, then they provoke on the 15' square. No dealing with phantom squares or anything, it all happens in the 15' square. If they move away or take any other action that normally provokes AoO, it doesn't provoke.
Does this help the reach weapon wielder in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor?
Unless a 'solution' also solves this problem, people will (rightly) use the 3.5 version.
Try this on for size (just a thought that sprang to mind): use the 3.5 exception, but say that any 10 foot effect has a 50% miss chance on the second diagonal (similarly, 25 foot effects on the 4th diagonal).
I certainly haven't thought it through, so there's bound to be flaws.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Elaborate; what exactly is this issue with a 5' wide diagonal corridor? Cause this is the first time it's come up in this discourse based on a Search.
If there is no way to approach someone except diagonally, and you can only attack at a range of 10', then by RAW there is nowhere you can stand to fight them.
|
|
Edit: Nevermind, I extrapolated what you mean. A 5' wide diagonal corridor on a grid wouldn't allow a position to make a normal attack with a 10' reach weapon. That's ultimately a matter of lazy GMing right there. You can abstract it by making the corridor a "separate area" and simply normalize it to the grid so that it isn't diagonal. A thorough GM simply wouldn't allow such a situation to occur; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Two solutions for the price of one! Cool!
Solution 1: Abstract a seperate area within which you 'normalise' (read:rotate 180 degrees).
If this is reasonable, wouldn't it be even more reasonable to do this without requiring a diagonal corridor? Simply 'normalise' everytime you would otherwise move or attack diagonally.
Somehow, I think this is easier said than done. It's certainly not better than the 3.5 version.
Solution 2: Don't allow diagonal corridors to exist in your game world.
Er...this is a solution?
Oh how I wish Pathfinder used Hex grids. SOOOO much simpler.
I wouldn't have any problem with that if i knew where to get hex-gridded paper pads to plot my dungeons on.
|
A 5' wide diagonal corridor on a grid wouldn't allow a position to make a normal attack with a 10' reach weapon. That's ultimately a matter of lazy GMing right there. You can abstract it by making the corridor a "separate area" and simply normalize it to the grid so that it isn't diagonal.
That doesn't really help when you want to make use of your dungeon tiles, look at my set up for the Freeport Trilogy (WARNING! map spoiler for the original Freeport Trilogy adventure, Death in Freeport).
If in this set up a fight occurred in the yellow diagonal tile, depending upon other obstacles and foes, someone with a 10' reach weapon my not be able to attack a foe standing in the main diagonal corridor. And this is a 10' wdie diagonal corridor.
Cathedral of Chaos has genuine 5' wide diagonal corridors as seen in this picture.
So I wouldn't call it lazy GMing to want to use diagonal corridors and represent them with dungeon tiles.
|
|
Easy solutions aren't always the best ones....You want an easy game? Go play checkers.
It is certainly possible to calculate 2x2 using logarithms to a high degree of accuracy, but it must be said that sometimes the more complex solution is not better.
Given two equally effective solutions choose the simple one each time.
And how is the 3.5 method better when it doesn't address the inherent problem with threatening and attacking outside the reach of your weapon?
SKR's solution (I know he doesn't like it being attributed to him) involved the phantom square 10-feet away, but more importantly he said that this idea is already a consequence of the RAW, even though it wasn't obvious! If that is the case, then the following is also the case:-
The rules already state that a medium creature mounted on a large creature counts as occupying all four squares for the purpose of being targeted. The rules for a creatures 'space' also state that, while most creatures don't literally fill the whole volume of that space, you can target that creature if you can target any one of the squares that make up that creature's space.
Given that, and the 'phantom 10-foot square' idea, it has to be admitted that the phantom square overlaps the actual 15-foot square which is the second diagonal. The 10-foot reach weapon can attack anything in that phantom 10-foot square, and since that overlaps the actual 15-foot square, it must be able to attack a creature whose space includes that square!
This is consistent with what's already in the CRB!
It allows a reach weapon to threaten that second diagonal, just by collating the rules that already exist, despite it not being spelled-out under the entry for 'reach weapons'.
The consequence is that, despite it not being spelled out, that reach weapons in PF already do threaten the diagonal, using the exact same logic that SKR used to explain how reach weapon wielders do get an AoO on those approaching on a diagonal, even though the rules don't spell it out!
If SKR's logic is sound, then the consequence is that reach weapons already do threaten the second diagonal!
If his logic is not sound, then we are back to (excuse me) square one, with the ability to charge reach weapon wielders diagonally without provoking an AoO by teleporting from 15-feet to 5-feet!
And if the implication of the rule is that reach weapons do threaten the second diagonal, then it's a good idea to simply write that into the rules on reach weapons.
Y'know, like they did in 3rd ed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To put it bluntly, it is lazy GMing to want to use diagonal corridors and represent them with dungeon tiles without adjusting for the implications of problems with 10' reach along diagonals. A GM could put a modicum of extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square or some such tool to address the problem. If, instead, he says, "Well, sorry, it's too much trouble to deal with that so you're SOL," then he's being lazy.
Yep, you're right, it is lazy GMing to want to use game aids such as Dungeon Tiles - and that is a good thing, because it makes the game flow smoother and quicker.
I mean, by your logic, using square based movement is lazy as well and we should just be using tape measures and allow PCs to move in whichever direction they wish. But I imagine that would slow combats down somewhat and so we use the lazy approach.
Personally, if I am going to be a lazy GM, rather than go to the "extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square" I would just houserule in the 3.5 rule - even easier, and probably a lot quicker to explain to players too! And I can use my dungeon tiles as is, without having to screw around with changing the alignment of the grid.
So yeah, lazy GMing is good! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SKR's solution (I know he doesn't like it being attributed to him) involved the phantom square 10-feet away, but more importantly he said that this idea is already a consequence of the RAW, even though it wasn't obvious! If that is the case, then the following is also the case:-
The rules already state that a medium creature mounted on a large creature counts as occupying all four squares for the purpose of being targeted. The rules for a creatures 'space' also state that, while most creatures don't literally fill the whole volume of that space, you can target that creature if you can target any one of the squares that make up that creature's space.
Given that, and the 'phantom 10-foot square' idea, it has to be admitted that the phantom square overlaps the actual 15-foot square which is the second diagonal. The 10-foot reach weapon can attack anything in that phantom 10-foot square, and since that overlaps the actual 15-foot square, it must be able to attack a creature whose space includes that square!
SKR never said anything about a phantom square, I did, trying to figure out the consequences of what he was talking about. He just said it sounded right.
SKR said there's a threatened band that exists between squares, and passing through the 10-foot-radius band around the creature provokes.
The part I don't understand (aside from occupied squares during AoO's from other party members) is why this isn't considered a change, since the rules clearly and explicitly state you threaten squares, while the Jason interpretation changes that to refer to a band of space instead of a square. But since the rules are not in error, I guess that means our definition of a square is incorrect, and threatening squares means also threatening, in some cases, spaces between those squares.
Four months and only 14 FAQ requests on his post. (But almost 100 favorites on Gauss' poll)
|
|
Wow, people get pretty hot about this math issue. I know I personally use the old method, from before 3rd edition, whereby a square is 1 square of movement, no matter which direction you use. I know this makes the math experts unhappy, and I know it violates the rules, but neither my players nor I mind. If the squares are making your life difficult in trying to figure out when a diagonal means more than any other direction, you might want to consider pretending a square is a square. Just my 2 cents, but you may find this cuts through all the math hyperbole and brings you back into an easier, friendlier (though less true to abstract math) type of play! Your mileage may vary, though, just a thought.
|
|
While you might think your method is simpler/better, Kazaan, according to Gauss' poll ten times as many people (96 to 9, one person voted both ways) think that the 3.5 exception is simpler/better.
Since 3rd ed until PF, reach weapons threatened the diagonal. No-one complained about it and everyone knew about it. There was no problem to fix!
Any attempt to take those diagonals away would have resulted in the creation of problems that never existed before, such as not being able to attack in diagonal corridors, not getting an AoO on those approaching on a diagonal, both of which are more of a 'problem' than threatening the second diagonal ever was!
Any 'solution' so far advanced (apart from returning to the original 3.5 rule) generates new problems to be solved. Pretend they do threaten the diagonal, but only if moving toward you? Okay, my AoO trips him, but now I can't attack him despite neither of moving in the beat between trip and follow-up?
In the opinion of the (96 to 9) vast majority, they should not have changed it in PF. They actually play the rule of a different game system because the current rule is so flawed!
What I object to with the solution you put forward, Kazaan, is that it makes no attempt to work within the static square grid which is the game system, and calls us lazy for not changing it! One advantage of the 3.5 rule is that it was made for the static grid system, and works perfectly without having to make other stuff up to cover weaknesses.
The problem with the 3.5 exception is that it inverts the problem: why do I threaten 15' on a diagonal, but not on a straight?
Yes, it's easy to adjudicate and gets around the problem of the diagonal approach, but does nothing about the fact that 10' reach should not work on creatures that are measurably (within the granularity of the game system) 15' away. The SKR solution (sorry, Sean, it's good shorthand, and I'm not directly attributing it to you, despite the "name") is essentially as follows: Should movement occur from a non-threatened square into a threatened square that is (by normal distance conting) closer than the reach distance of the defender's weapon, that movement provokes an attack of opportunity. <Insert example here.>
It's not pretty, but it resolves all of the problems.
|
|
Doomed Hero, I suggest that if you do not want the restrictions of a grid go to a gridless map. Rulers work just fine. I have played that way and with experienced players it works decently well.
- Gauss
That is what I moved to. I gave the players a six inch dowel with inch notches and they move their characters wherever the movement allows within that distance. I also made up AE templates or spells that are based on actual size and have special rules for edges of effects.
It's not pretty, but it resolves all of the problems.
Only the AoO problem, not the diagonal corridor problem.
The problem with the 3.5 exception is that it inverts the problem: why do I threaten 15' on a diagonal, but not on a straight?
That problem can be solved by ignoring it, the same way we ignore the fact that characters ought to be able to stand half way between map squares if they want to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that using the 3.5 rule is simpler and easier to understand, but I don't think it's a good idea to start changing rules in the Core Rulebook if they're not actually errors.
Even if the majority of active tabletop roleplayers seem to mistakenly use the the incorrect v3.5 method? Would it not be simpler to adopt the v3.5 method than to make a bunch of players have a "Huh? What?" to your clarification?
Kazaan, your 'lazy' is another person's 'simple'. If a game is going to be mass marketed things should be simple. There are enough problems to worry about without having to redraw the map every time someone hits a diagonal corridor.
As I suggested earlier, those people that really want to avoid this can use a gridless map. BUT, that is not simple and takes more time, work, and experienced players.
Rotating the grid actually takes an insane amount of time and effort when dealing with pre-printed maps. Even converting a map in a book to the white board would take a GM several extra minutes as he tries to change the orientation of the map in the book to what he is drawing on the board.
- Gauss
Wow, people get pretty hot about this math issue. I know I personally use the old method, from before 3rd edition, whereby a square is 1 square of movement, no matter which direction you use. I know this makes the math experts unhappy, and I know it violates the rules, but neither my players nor I mind. If the squares are making your life difficult in trying to figure out when a diagonal means more than any other direction, you might want to consider pretending a square is a square. Just my 2 cents, but you may find this cuts through all the math hyperbole and brings you back into an easier, friendlier (though less true to abstract math) type of play! Your mileage may vary, though, just a thought.
4e actually does that as well
|
|
Playing devil's advocate here: if you move five feet diagonally, you couldn't then attack the adjacent diagonal because that diagonal is counted as a 10' space. So while a character with a reach weapon wouldn't get an AoO against someone moving on the diagonal; neither would that someone get an attack against the character (unless their movement started three diagonal spaces away).
Unless the attacker is a monster, because they DO threaten the 15' diagonal. Another reason to level the playing field by reverting to the 3.5 rules on reach weapons.
This.
A monster with a 10ft reach can "reach" 15ft diagonally.
A player with a 10ft reach weapon cannot do the same.
It's dumb and arbitrarily more complicated this way. 3.5 ftw here.
Unless the attacker is a monster, because they DO threaten the 15' diagonal. Another reason to level the playing field by reverting to the 3.5 rules on reach weapons.This.
A monster with a 10ft reach can "reach" 15ft diagonally.
A player with a 10ft reach weapon cannot do the same.It's dumb and arbitrarily more complicated this way. 3.5 ftw here.
No...no. Firstly, by RAW the one and only advantage to natural reach is to threaten the entire circle, instead of just the perimeter. This does not include "extra" corners. Secondly, the diagonal problem doesn't exist in the first place per SKR's ruling. IMO the only reason it's not a FAQ is because it should be common sense.
Mx. Bug, there are a majority of pollsters (106 to 14) that would disagree with you on it being 'common sense'.
It appears that the 'common sense' is that if you threaten a half of a square you threaten the square.
- Gauss
|
|
This does not make any game sense to me at all....if they do not threaten then they can not take an AoO. Plus why trip them in 15 foot square where they can not reach? so now there is a free bullrush if you trip at diagonal? If they wanted the diagonal to 10 feet then they should have made it 10 feet since it is 15 there should not be an AoO as then pass over the line between 2 spaces......