Distance in our games matters, but it isn't done off a grid for exactly the problems mentioned, and because people don't move so precisely.
If they have reach, they have reach, out to the distance it says. If you have the small arms and non-reach weapon, you are going to have a hard time.
That a person could charge a ready polearm wielder with reach from the left diagonal and not have to worry about the reach is amusing, since from observation right handers will usually hold the head of the polearm out on the left diagonal with their right army closer to their body. With a small pivot right and push across with the left, the right diagonal is easily covered also.
http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/254/a/8/qin_dynasty_halberdier_by_je rry_teo-d2yht30.jpg
http://forums.wesnoth.org/download/file.php?id=28246&t=1
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1130/jakob31.jpg
Love reach weapons, love monsters with reach, don't use squares, don't find I need to. Knew one guy that was obsessed with distance and grids though. Very silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 Loyalist:
Some players simply cannot visualize the distances without them. Take the game Warhammer FB, it takes experience to know the distances to call out before you are allowed to measure them.
I tried to go gridless and did so for about 6months. It caused several of my players a lot of difficulty and they rejoiced when I switched to a grid.
- Gauss
|
Going to have to steal that.Yes, I use the exception.
I also count diagonals as 7.5 feet rather than the one-two rule.
Should point out thats only if they are doing more than one diagonal. If someone with a speed of thirty is going five up and one diagonal I wont say "Thats 32.5 feet, you double moved" =p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group was unaware that the 3.5 exception hadn't been ported to PF, and we continue to use it.
3.5 Loyalist:
Some players simply cannot visualize the distances without them. Take the game Warhammer FB, it takes experience to know the distances to call out before you are allowed to measure them.
I tried to go gridless and did so for about 6months. It caused several of my players a lot of difficulty and they rejoiced when I switched to a grid.
- Gauss
One of my problems is how strange it is and how character knowledge should matter. I've had players ask me the exact distance of something quite far away, and there is no way they would know that precisely. As a dm I know it, but their characters do not.
The running joke is, you'll need to get out your measuring tape, after one player demanded to know the exact distances again and again. As a dm I give it roughtly, very close, short, long, etc. The combat is broken up into five foot distances, but it isn't squares. Maybe I think of it in a more broad octagon sense, you can be attacked from a total of eight sides. Confusing I suppose, and if you use miniatures you will want to be more precise and make it more like tabletop wargaming.
In describing battles and running distance, I keep it a little more unknown, and sometimes, yeah, they get the distance wrong because how would they know, when the scenery always changes and they don't throw out distance markers and stay stationary?
3.5 Loyalist, if I know the distance from my car to another car in traffic or on the highway I am sure my PC knows the approximate distance from his person to the enemy (within a certain distance, greater distances will be less accurate of course).
The problem is, players having a lack of spatial awareness is not the same thing as their characters having a lack of spatial awareness. In fact, it is far more likely that the characters will be far far better at it. I am not discussing distances of 200feet, I am talking within a single move that the player cannot figure out if it is 1 move, 2, or not even possible.
Even at large distances (of hundreds of feet) experienced warriors throughout history could determine the distance. Very experienced cannon gunners could determine near exact distances just by eyeball. So a higher level character should be able to determine near exact distances of a fireball spell at long range.
These are 2 new players who have NEVER played a wargame or RPG before playing with me. After 2 or so years they are still not what I would consider experienced. The players who are experienced still prefer something to give the map more shape (ie: grid) so they can more clearly see things. Marks on a whiteboard (ie: walls) is hard enough as is. A lack of a grid is a lack of dimensional reference that causes problems for players that the player's characters simply do not have.
Of course, the extreme end of gridless is boardless play. I have done that before (although that was a very long time ago). Then nobody knows where anyone is. LOL
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how people keep calling this "SKR's ruling" when (1) I'm quoting the rule written by Jason, and (2) Jason confirmed this is how it's supposed to work. :p
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how people keep calling this "SKR's ruling" when (1) I'm quoting the rule written by Jason, and (2) Jason confirmed this is how it's supposed to work. :p
I thought you'd get used to your Default Evil Boogeyman role by now - nice guys Jason and James hand out sweets and hug kids, and then the dastardly evil SKR runs through the night, laughing maniacally and stealing all the muffins!
Vote: No, we don't use the exception.
I'm not actually sure why. We are either pretty adherent to rules (we do have houserules, though), or we like not having a lot of exceptions to rules, is my guess.
Edit: <voted, just took my sweet time doing it>
And to add, I rather like not using the exception, personally. However, I can see the reasoning for using it. There's the "10' reach weapon in a diagonal corner problem", which can be solved a number of ways, but I can see that it's easier to make a distance exception than to weight the tradeoffs of at least 3 different solutions I can think of, all of which are more complicated than a distance exception. There's also the matter of creatures occupying a square shape (or cubic), when, using my "measure distances consistently" reasoning, they should be of a circular or spherical approximation. But I'll stick to my current response for now. Oddities of this rule have never come up for us, oddly enough, so whatever we're doing seems okay. We fix things when we encounter them, and document it.
SKR:
My apologies for calling it 'your ruling'. I did not know Jason made the ruling. In the future I will add extra language to indicate that you posted the ruling and are not necessarily the one making the ruling. How does: 'The ruling SKR posted' sound to you?
- Gauss
Stazamos: Then by all means please favorite 'no' on the first page, 3rd post down.
- Gauss
|
|
I love how people keep calling this "SKR's ruling" when (1) I'm quoting the rule written by Jason, and (2) Jason confirmed this is how it's supposed to work. :p
In another thread I explicitly called it Jason's most boneheaded and absurd design decision, far worse than anything monk related. In fact I doubt anyone at paizo actually plays without the exception. Even Jason.
|
The more I think about this, the more I want to change my vote to "no".
Sure, I like getting AoO's on the diagonal, but is it really so bad if you don't? We've seen how nuts a dedicated trip/AoO build with a reach weapon can be-- wouldn't a "blind spot" help balance it out mechanically? Is it really so bizarre to think that a long, unwieldy weapon like a polearm might be difficult to maneuver?
The only place the rule (or lack thereof) really becomes relevant is in a narrow, diagonal corridor-- exactly the kind of place that a fighter in real life would put away his polearm and switch to a more maneuverable close-quarters weapon. Without the 3.5 exception, the player has both a mechanical and flavor reason to drop his glaive-guisarme and rely on his cestus.
But my group kept the 3.5 exception-- out of inertia more than loyalty-- so I guess my vote remains "yes".
SKR:
My apologies for calling it 'your ruling'. I did not know Jason made the ruling. In the future I will add extra language to indicate that you posted the ruling and are not necessarily the one making the ruling. How does: 'The ruling SKR posted' sound to you?
- Gauss
I'd prefer "the rule," it doesn't need a personal attribution. :)
Sure, I like getting AoO's on the diagonal, but is it really so bad if you don't? ...Wouldn't a "blind spot" help balance it out mechanically? ...The only place the rule (or lack thereof) really becomes relevant is in a narrow, diagonal corridor...
Umm... No.
Unless the enemy moving towards Mr. Reach Weapon has no more movement to spare, they can and will move to take advantage of this 'diagonal reach blind spot'. If that's how the game works, doing so is no more un-reasonable than maneuvering to avoid AoO threat zones generally, or maneuvering to keep full-attack options for yourself, or deny them to your opponents. Which means that Mr. Reach Weapon would no longer be able to use his Reach Weapon for AoO's in the 80%* of cases where an opponent can spend extra movement in order to take advantage of the diagonal 'blind spot'.* I'm making this number up, but use whatever figure you think is reasonable. It WILL be more than just 'in diagonal corridors'... Which I'm really not clear on why you think they should work differently than non-diagonal corridors just because the grid is spun 45* on top of the same building.
Hmmm, I do not see that the rule is written in the CRB as an accurate statement when the ruling runs contrary to the written rules. While I generally do not comment on the ruling itself, I just use the 3.5 exception, I do see peoples POV that it is contrary to the rules regarding threatened squares.
In any case, it is a developer ruling so perhaps I will use that wording. Personally, I think you (SKR) got the short shaft from people regarding rulings when you are primarily a messenger relating what a team of developers (including yourself) came up with. I do not attribute rulings to you in any personal sense other than to indicate that you posted them (which helps others to find the post).
- Gauss
3.5 Loyalist, if I know the distance from my car to another car in traffic or on the highway I am sure my PC knows the approximate distance from his person to the enemy (within a certain distance, greater distances will be less accurate of course).
The problem is, players having a lack of spatial awareness is not the same thing as their characters having a lack of spatial awareness. In fact, it is far more likely that the characters will be far far better at it. I am not discussing distances of 200feet, I am talking within a single move that the player cannot figure out if it is 1 move, 2, or not even possible.
Even at large distances (of hundreds of feet) experienced warriors throughout history could determine the distance. Very experienced cannon gunners could determine near exact distances just by eyeball. So a higher level character should be able to determine near exact distances of a fireball spell at long range.
These are 2 new players who have NEVER played a wargame or RPG before playing with me. After 2 or so years they are still not what I would consider experienced. The players who are experienced still prefer something to give the map more shape (ie: grid) so they can more clearly see things. Marks on a whiteboard (ie: walls) is hard enough as is. A lack of a grid is a lack of dimensional reference that causes problems for players that the player's characters simply do not have.
Of course, the extreme end of gridless is boardless play. I have done that before (although that was a very long time ago). Then nobody knows where anyone is. LOL
- Gauss
Yeah, and I've guessed 100m exactly, once, and this wasn't done in combat, while being charged, and the target was moving.
If you want to test how badly people get it wrong, you will need measuring tape and someone to rush to different ranges, and then have the other person call it with no added info. Bonus points if you are sparring with someone else while the runner moves to different ranges. They will get it wrong, and that is why I only give it vaguely. They just won't know.
Another reason they don't get to know distances accurately all the time: darkness, obstructions, partial or hindrances to visibility. Try to work out distance in a fog, in a dark room with fearsome architecture that looms large, or while being shot at.
*Screams over the sound of battle*
"Yeah the target is 351 feet away."
"How the hell did you know that?"
"I guessed it, I didn't even need to use measurements or anything."
"That doesn't make any sense! You could be way off!"
So when players start to lob spells, I give them a rough distance, and then we see if their spells make it, or they go off early or late. Because nowhere does it say, casting a spell also involves accurate measurement of the distance to the target. lol.
As for the throughout history, those gunners you invoked also got it very wrong. Shot early, shot late, missed moving targets, etc etc etc. History is not full of only ranged hits, it also has misses even from the experienced.
I use the 3.5 exception.
Doing otherwise, while using the phantom 10' square when approaching on a diagonal seems silly.
Not just silly. It's absurd. Nothing in the RAW so much as hints that it is supposed to be done that way.
I'd prefer "the rule," it doesn't need a personal attribution. :)SKR:
My apologies for calling it 'your ruling'. I did not know Jason made the ruling. In the future I will add extra language to indicate that you posted the ruling and are not necessarily the one making the ruling. How does: 'The ruling SKR posted' sound to you?
- Gauss
"The rule" makes it sounds like it's in a book or in the FAQ or something. It's in neither, which means it's off most people's radar. That and most people didn't realize pathfinder changed the diagonal reach rule, and thus weren't clamoring for a rule to fix what the changed rule broke.
In my book it ranks up their with the twfing=flurry rule that recently got changed.
Could you please also post a rule letting reach weapons be used in diagonal hallways/doorways? I've had fights like this in PFS, and the reach rules make reach useless here.
I'd prefer "the rule," it doesn't need a personal attribution. :)SKR:
My apologies for calling it 'your ruling'. I did not know Jason made the ruling. In the future I will add extra language to indicate that you posted the ruling and are not necessarily the one making the ruling. How does: 'The ruling SKR posted' sound to you?
- Gauss
"The rule" makes it sounds like it's in a book or in the FAQ or something. It's in neither, which means it's off most people's radar. That and most people didn't realize pathfinder changed the diagonal reach rule, and thus weren't clamoring for a rule to fix what the changed rule broke.
In my book it ranks up their with the twfing=flurry rule that recently got changed.
Exactly. If anything, their "clarification" breaks the game more than the original mix up did.
Why ever make a decision that makes your game worse off or harder to understand? I just don't get some of the decisions Paizo designers make sometimes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. If anything, their "clarification" breaks the game more than the original mix up did.
*shrug* It's in the text. It's buried and obscure, and nowhere near as clear as it could be, I've already said that.
Why ever make a decision that makes your game worse off or harder to understand? I just don't get some of the decisions Paizo designers make sometimes.
I just don't get why you continue to have this hostile attitude. Once again, like so many times before, your reply makes me regret getting involved in rules discussions. Congratulations.
|
|
Exactly. If anything, their "clarification" breaks the game more than the original mix up did.*shrug* It's in the text. It's buried and obscure, and nowhere near as clear as it could be, I've already said that.
Why ever make a decision that makes your game worse off or harder to understand? I just don't get some of the decisions Paizo designers make sometimes.I just don't get why you continue to have this hostile attitude. Once again, like so many times before, your reply makes me regret getting involved in rules discussions. Congratulations.
@SKR; I realise that you, as a designer of the game, are limited in how you respond to this question. You can't change the rule. So you explain how the rule as written can allow a reach weapon wielder to take an AoO on an enemy approaching diagonally. Fair enough.
It would help if you could also explain how a reach weapon wielder can attack an enemy in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor! On his own turn, he is trying to attack that enemy diagonally, but the baddy is either 5-feet or 15-feet away! He can't attack! That cannot be right!
There was a suggestion that you could 'squeeze' into a half-square, but that seems crazy; why take squeezing penalties when the corridor is plenty wide enough and otherwise clear?
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! Does that make sense? Is that consistent with what's already in the CRB?
I intend this respectfully. I believe 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'.
If this line of reasoning can be supported (and it works for 'creature's space' and 'attacking mounted creatures already), can we then add the line about 'threatening the diagonal' to reach weapons, without being seen to actually change any rules?
Thoughts?
I agree that this causes a lot of problems and it needs to be fixed.
Sorry for being so brusque Mr. Reynolds. Truly you don't deserve it.
Malachi Silverclaw explained much better than I how this is problematic and inconsistent with existing game elements. With things as they are, I for one have been wondering where a person falls prone when tripped on an diagonal move by an attack of opportunity: this half square or that half square?
It is my hope that, if errata is ever issued in regards to this problem, that it comes with an explanatory graphic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. If anything, their "clarification" breaks the game more than the original mix up did.*shrug* It's in the text. It's buried and obscure, and nowhere near as clear as it could be, I've already said that.
Why ever make a decision that makes your game worse off or harder to understand? I just don't get some of the decisions Paizo designers make sometimes.I just don't get why you continue to have this hostile attitude. Once again, like so many times before, your reply makes me regret getting involved in rules discussions. Congratulations.
In a previous life I designed games. I once even created a limited set of role playing game rules. Mostly though I created rules for wargames and strategy games.
Now, I only attempted to market two of those games (one a Chess derivative and one a game based on corrupt politics) and neither was a raging success in the marketplace, but I think it has given me a view of the perspective of game designers and game players alike.
While I think RD has a harsh approach to his frustrations, I do have to admit that I too have looked at many rules decisions in Pathfinder and have shaken my head with a "what the heck were they thinking?" response. Of course in my case I try to remember that my own games have generated exactly that sort of response from my game players, what the heck was I thinking?
I think some of the frustration in this and other threads on rules decisions comes from the length of time that Pathfinder game players are having to deal with well-known issues that have been on the table (heh, pun) for years without getting resolution, in spite of mountains of other content coming out.
Of course this isn't restricted to Paizo, in fact Paizo is probably one of the better companies in this regard, but it is something that Paizo does too, and since Pathfinder is what I play, I understand the frustration of "why don't they just fix the dang rule?"
Now in a previous thread this was addressed and it was explained that in order to remain in business and make a profit that pays the salaries of all the game designers we love to hear from on these boards, if something isn't broke enough then it may not be a focus of the development team.
I get that. RD may or may not, but even though I get that, it is a somewhat unsatisfying response.
So when SKR grudgingly says "it needs to be fixed" I can't help but shake my head again and say "Yeah, we know. So why don't you do it?"
Which then gets accusations hurled my way of being insensitive or disrespectful of the game designers.
The truth is that I have tremendous respect for Paizo game designers and developers. I KNOW how hard it is to come up with a rule "fix" that doesn't break five other carefully constructed rules synergies. I know how easy it is to overlook something that in retrospect seems completely obvious. It's hard work. It's easy to feel like the work is not appreciated.
But it is appreciated. We love the product, we just want to make it better, and addressing some of the long and well known issues would go a long way to make it better.
That's what I think RD is trying to say.
Jason is making a list of things that need to be addressed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is he checking it twice?
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice?
Oh I'm screwed.
|
|
I do agree that it should have to be done, and it is how we've always run it in our games. Many people would rule that Pathfinder is based off of 3.5 and what isn't expanded upon in Pathfinder, yet is explained in 3.5, still means that 3.5 rules are included in Pathfinder.
While I will agree that Pathfinder was modeled on 3.5 rules, there is NOWHERE that states "Use the 3.5 rules as a basis, then apply these updates and changes." The Pathfinder Core rules are the complete rules set, without reference to 3.5 antecedents. Therefore I would argue that "if it was in 3.5, but not addressed in Pathfinder, then that means it's still in Pathfinder" is a totally invalid argument.
|
|
I just don't get why you continue to have this hostile attitude. Once again, like so many times before, your reply makes me regret getting involved in rules discussions. Congratulations.
Did the Santa stuff fix that, because it made this whole thread worthwhile for me.
Someone needs to go into photoshop and make Jason Claus happen.
Just sayin'
I'm just hoping this one gets addressed in a way that makes sense to the average person. I don't have all the rules memorized, and likely never will. Thus, when someone at a table asks me about something (this would be a perfect example), I will usually just make up an answer.
I'm not saying I pull an answer out of my rear. I'll make a judgement based on what seems logical given the situation, etc. But what I don't want to be doing is bringing the game to a screeching halt while we pore over tomes of rules. Usually I'll look it up later, if I can find it. Some rules are pretty obscure and can be hard to find.
In any event, that's why I'd have said that the pole arm threatens the corners, and that's why I'll stick with that ruling. It just makes sense, and is a lot more like what someone would decide at at table.
|
|
While I will agree that Pathfinder was modeled on 3.5 rules, there is NOWHERE that states "Use the 3.5 rules as a basis, then apply these updates and changes." The Pathfinder Core rules are the complete rules set, without reference to 3.5 antecedents. Therefore I would argue that "if it was in 3.5, but not addressed in Pathfinder, then that means it's still in Pathfinder" is a totally invalid argument.
I do agree that it should have to be done, and it is how we've always run it in our games. Many people would rule that Pathfinder is based off of 3.5 and what isn't expanded upon in Pathfinder, yet is explained in 3.5, still means that 3.5 rules are included in Pathfinder.
Yup. I've mentioned before on these forums that this is a pet peeve of mine.
I never played 3.5. I've never even seen a 3.5 book. I started playing Pathfinder, and learned the rules by reading the Core Rulebook (still not the whole thing... yet) and other Paizo publications.
When I ask a rules question on these forums and someone starts mentioning 3.5 rules, it annoys the heck out of me. Pathfinder is a self contained game, and ALL of its rules are in the Paizo publications. This is not 3.5.
As for the original question in this thread, I think I voted "yes" before I understood the whole discussion. I would play with AoO's for a reach weapon when someone does the double diagonal thing, because it just makes sense, but I couldn't explain why.
Pathfinder is not quite as self contained as we would like. It IS a great improvement on 3.5 but just like when you move from one house to another certain things got forgotten from 3.5 to Pathfinder in the move. Some things we have to go back and look at 3.5 in order to make sense of them in pathfinder.
For example, there are occasional threads about what defines energy. Some people not familiar with 3.5 believe that energy includes Positive and Negative energy and there is nothing in the PF rules that I can show them that says otherwise. Now, back in 3.5 I can show them but they declare that was 3.5 and this is PF and now there is no such distinction.
But, that does not necessarily apply to the 3.5 exception. That could have either been forgotten, or left out intentionally. Without Paizo informing us which was the case we do not know the answer. (Note: I believe they stated they left it behind on purpose but I cannot find the reference.) Still, I prefer the 3.5 exception and will continue to use it in my home games. If I ever play PFS I will simply not use a reach weapon.
- Gauss
|
|
You hope so, but I will warn you last I checked I am batting about 90% on FAQ decisions.I think Ciretose will be sad when he looks in his stocking. : )Is he checking it twice?
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice?
I don't wish you any ill; we have never had any problem with each other!
I've observed your interactions with Paizo devs though....and if they are making the list....!
BTW, 100% so far for me! : )
|
|
You hope so, but I will warn you last I checked I am batting about 90% on FAQ decisions.I think Ciretose will be sad when he looks in his stocking. : )Is he checking it twice?
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice?
I don't wish you any ill; we have never had any problem with each other!
I've observed your interactions with Paizo devs though....and if they are making the list....!
BTW, 100% so far for me! : )
Go back and read the thread rather than believing the synopsis. I am not Shallowsoul or Ashiel.
|
I see this solution bring more new problems than solve the "reach thing".
For instance if a creature were to charge from a direction and use this said second diagonal, and you have readied an attack with a reach weapon. You would have to create a mountain of exceptions to include the possibility to brace against such an attack. After all, you simultaneously threaten the square due to movement yet cannot attack normally to said square.
That's where the trouble stirs.
What puzzles me is the motivation behind this. Why was the exception scrapped? It was well-founded and as noted, almost everyone has been playing as if reach weapons threaten the second diagonal. Bringing this up now, several years after the release, speak of how this revelation was not needed.
This is most troubling in "strict RAW environments", like Pathfinder Society. Am I to now enforce this new ruling, and possibly garner more negative attention to the matter, and having some upset players at my table? I'd prefer not to.
yes I allow a reach weapon to attack two squares away, even on the diagonal in my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer the "3.5 exception" to a lot of things, actually. But, my group uses PF rules, so I'm stuck with those.
I'll definitely be bringing up PF's dumbfangled reach rules at the next session, though.
Thread Resurrection!
I just had this crazy thought.
Let us say I have 10 feet of reach. I have a foe 2 diagonal squares away (15 feet, right?). So I can't hit them and I don't threaten them.
OOX
OOO
MOO
(M = me, X = foe)
But, here is my brilliant idea. What if on my turn, I move 5 ft diagonally toward them. Now even though I am now adjacent, and normally wouldn't threaten that square with my 10 feet of reach, because I have moved 5 feet diagonally, the next diagonal has to be 10 feet for me. Thus the foe is actually 10 feet away at this point (and only during this round). Thus I can now attack that square with my 10 feet of reach.
OOX
OMO
OOO
Brilliant!
Pres man, unfortunately incorrect. Your next 5' step taken next turn will in fact move you into his square. In effect: when you take a 5'step diagonally you move 7.5feet.
Example:
Round 1: Enemy is 2squares away from me diagonally (15'). I take a 5'step and am now next to him. He is considered 5' away now.
Round 2: I move another 5' step towards him. I am now in his square.
Add up the distance: 5+5 = 15'
Screwy, but them's the rules.
Its why the 3.5 exception makes so much sense.
- Gauss
Fromper, that assumes that right or forward are an option. But yes. :)
- Gauss