If you really want some fun and further confusion and clarification simultaneously... Try these two threads:
Ha ha, there are no squares, distance is distance. Think in hexagons!
Poll: No - I do not use the 3.5 exception. You do not threaten a square two diagonals away with a 10' reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems ludicrous that anything with a reach weapon CANNOT attack diagonally. What is this supposed to be a BAD early 80s computer game on a floppy disk?! COMEON!!LET'S APPLY THE SMALLEST MEASURE of COMMON SENSE. I know it isn't that common these days but AHHHHHHRRRRRRGGGHHH!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I necromancied this issue a while back and people saying that the 10' radius ahd gaps in the four corners steams my lobsters to no end! I think this is the single STUPIDEST rule in pathfinder and Buhlman really needs to clarify it officially and if it isn't fixed I will continue to ignnore RAW on the matter and include diagonals in the reach/threatening.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I necromancied this issue a while back and people saying that the 10' radius ahd gaps in the four corners steams my lobsters to no end! I think this is the single STUPIDEST rule in pathfinder and Buhlman really needs to clarify it officially and if it isn't fixed I will continue to ignnore RAW on the matter and include diagonals in the reach/threatening.
I have it on good authority that the gaps in the four corners are historically accurate. This is why enemy units always sought to charge pikemen from 45 degree angles - to avoid the attack of opportunity.
By all means Conundrum, vote on page 1. Favorite the post of your choice to represent your vote. Currently we are at 101 to 11 in favor of the 3.5 exception.
- Gauss
We use a houserule:
If the character do anything which threatens the character with the reach weapon he got a AoO (casting etc.).
If he's withdrawing from the Reach Weapon Char = AoO
If he's only passing throught = no AoO
|
2) Creatures threaten all squares within their reach, including squares partially within their reach
3) Creatures cannot attack opponents unless the entire square is within their reach
Since the game definition of a 'threatened' square is a square into which you can make an attack, 2) and 3) cannot both be true.
If you threaten a square then you can attack into it. If you can't attack into a square then you don't threaten that square.
This is also a problem with the PF 'clarification'; it changes the definition of 'threatening', because it allows you to attack on the diagonal a creature not in any defined square.
The 3.5 exception FTW!
I don't do either, and just.rule that a five ft square is a five ft square, regardless.
Yes, it's slightlly faster to move diagonally.
No, it's not a problem.
I don't do either, and just.rule that a five ft square is a five ft square, regardless.
Yes, it's slightlly faster to move diagonally.
No, it's not a problem.
Same rulings here. It is never an issue as my players and I aren't quite *that* anal-retentive.
Distance matters, squares do not (I more think in hexagons anyway, a hold-out from second ed days). If they are in range they are in range.
Never got into dnd combat through miniatures so I never had this problem. We just use description and take note of distance.
|
A bit of a necro, but I thought it worth posting...
This issue came up at PaizoCon UK this past weekend. We were playing a PFS scenario and were facing a large opponent, in addition my druid had wildshaped into a Dire Ape and was thus large too. There was another foe behind the large foe who was making ranged attacks.
I had originally intended to move my large druid into a position where I threatened the ranged attacking foe so that I could get an AoO. However due to the amount of distance I had to move and the positioning of the other PCs the closest space I could end up in would have only allowed me to threaten if the 3.5 exception was in use - so I decided on another tactic and instead got into 10' melee range of the large foe.
On a later round, I want my large druid to cast a spell (he has the Natural Spell feat) and elected to 5 foot step to the side to escape the reach of the large foe. This would take me into the second diagonal corner of his reach and thus I felt I was safe from an AoO.
However the GM was insistent that the second diagonal was threatened. I stated that it was in 3.5 but not PF and that there had been a great deal of discussion on this on the forums and SKR had made it clear that the 2nd diagonal was not threatened. However my protestations were to no avail, rather a fellow player backed up the GM :)
Luckily it wasn't a big issue as my character was able to 5 foot step somewhere else to cast that was definitively out of the large foe's reach. However it does show that even experienced PF players and GMs aren't aware that the rule changed.
It is also saying something about the PFS ruling that dev rulings made & FAQ are binding if you are aware of them - in this case as I was aware of the ruling I could not pursue a certain tactic, but because the GM wasn't the NPC wasn't so similarly restricted.
Maybe Paizo would just be better off ruling that the 3.5 exception is used?
You could always ask at the beginning of every PFS table if they play with the 3.5 exception or not. When they go 'huh?' Show them the ruling (or don't, lol).
- Gauss
Apparently, I was using the 3.5 rule. But after seeing this thread and looking stuff up, I will no longer be using that.
on d20pfsrd, the large(tall) template hase the 2nd corner squares within its natural(10ft) reach. Oversight?
DonDuckie, why would you stop using the 3.5 exception unless you are GMing a PFS game? Not using the exception causes more problems than it solves (such as people being able to approach along the diagonal without provoking an Attack of Opportunity).
And yes, it probably is an oversight of the d20pfsrd. Do you have a link?
- Gauss
I use the exception. I honestly don't understand why it isn't official. Makes no sense that it's fine the second square in a diagonal is kinda-sorta both 10 feet and 15 feet, but that a reach weapon doesn't get the same benefit.
Apparently in Golarion all reach weapons shrink down to 5 feet when you come at someone from an angle.
Doomed Hero, then please, by all means, hit the + on the second post. :)
- Gauss
Done!
Those numbers are pretty telling aren't they.
Yeah, admittedly, I don't think the Devs will ever change it back to the 3.5 exception. But, people can use the numbers in debates as a form of proof that people do in fact use the exception. It simply makes sense because a weapon with 10 foot reach can reach over half way into the second square (10 out of 14.14 feet).
- Gauss
Voted for 3.5
DonDuckie, why would you stop using the 3.5 exception unless you are GMing a PFS game? Not using the exception causes more problems than it solves (such as people being able to approach along the diagonal without provoking an Attack of Opportunity).
And yes, it probably is an oversight of the d20pfsrd. Do you have a link?
- Gauss
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.
Why? I don't know, I just thought I would give it the benefit of the doubt and try it out... I've also thought about trying gridless, I like to try stuff.
Yeah, admittedly, I don't think the Devs will ever change it back to the 3.5 exception. But, people can use the numbers in debates as a form of proof that people do in fact use the exception. It simply makes sense because a weapon with 10 foot reach can reach over half way into the second square (10 out of 14.14 feet).
- Gauss
But you're not standing in the corner of your square. So your reach might be considered 4.14(almost 5) feet short - as in: not near enough.
I use the 3.5 rule. But I'll vote no. Because I'm a rebel! ;)
Note: Totally voted yes.
DonDuckie, whether measured corner to corner or center to center the total distance is still the same: 14.14 with 10feet of that covered. If the first square is 5 feet then the second is 9.14 with you covering 5 of that. Ie: over half.
It simply does not make sense to not allow that.
SKR's statement is not a rule, it is not in the rulebook. It is his house rule. It creates problems. If you trip a person in that 10' band what square does he wind up in? What about your AoO to attack someone that just got tripped (feat: Greater Trip)?
In short, it simply does not make sense that you can, but cannot attack someone. However, it is your game and it is entirely up to you how you run it. :)
Thanks for the link, I remember awhile back when I pointed out to the people at the d20pfsrd that they were using the 3.5 exception. It appears only some of the templates got fixed.
- Gauss
Little poll? :P
Find a larger Pathfinder forum and we can make the poll there. LOL
I do admit it is a small sample size but it should be close to the ratio.
- Gauss
DonDuckie, whether measured corner to corner or center to center the total distance is still the same: 14.14 with 10feet of that covered. If the first square is 5 feet then the second is 9.14 with you covering 5 of that. Ie: over half.
It simply does not make sense to not allow that.
---snip---
- Gauss
Center of your square to nearest corner of second diagonal is 5*1.5*sqrt(2)=10.6 feet
And AoO is resolved before the action that provoked, so I might be missing the problem, but enemy would just fall prone in 2nd diagonal. Let's say he was tripped and fell backwards - out of reach.
The rule doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. Combat has always been an abstract of what is actually going on, like a miss might actually hit but simply not cause injury.
Some mentioned hex grid... which I would probably use if I had a hex-mat.
So give an attack or don't, I didn't know you got AoO on your own turn.
So I'm learning all kinds of new stuff here.
EDIT: and again - the AoO happens before he lands, so you might argue he is just as attackable as when you tripped him.
You can argue that the AoO happens before he lands but he is still in the 15' square and thus it isn't allowed by the rules and SKR's house rule does not cover it since his house rule only covers movement through the 10' band.
So if combat is an abstract why is it so hard to conceive of hitting a guy who's square your weapon covers more than half of? If anything, the abstract in the opposite direction is the weird thing.
- Gauss
You can argue that the AoO happens before he lands but he is still in the 15' square and thus it isn't allowed by the rules and SKR's house rule does not cover it since his house rule only covers movement through the 10' band.
So if combat is an abstract why is it so hard to conceive of hitting a guy who's square your weapon covers more than half of? If anything, the abstract in the opposite direction is the weird thing.
- Gauss
The 3.5 exception isn't weird, nor is not having it. I'm not claiming there's a right and a wrong here. All I said was: "Didn't know the exception wasn't in PF, I'll try it the PF way. Maybe with SKR's house rule." (instead of your house rule)
And I'm not sure I agree a reach weapon covers more than half. If you draw a 10ft radius circle from the corner of your square, then no - not more than half. But if you draw a 12.5 ft circle from the center of your square(hitting the back of the 2nd square 'in front' of you) then it still won't cover half.
Let's be honest - dividing the world into 5-foot squares is weird. It's an abstract, accept it or use something else.
Saying the old way is an objectively better way - because of a single strange interaction with one three-feat chain used in a specific situation(caused by somebody exploiting meta-knowledge) - is not enough for me to say "well, then I just won't try it out."
|
|
You can argue that the AoO happens before he lands but he is still in the 15' square and thus it isn't allowed by the rules and SKR's house rule does not cover it since his house rule only covers movement through the 10' band.
So if combat is an abstract why is it so hard to conceive of hitting a guy who's square your weapon covers more than half of? If anything, the abstract in the opposite direction is the weird thing.
- Gauss
The 3.5 exception isn't weird, nor is not having it. I'm not claiming there's a right and a wrong here. All I said was: "Didn't know the exception wasn't in PF, I'll try it the PF way. Maybe with SKR's house rule." (instead of your house rule)
And I'm not sure I agree a reach weapon covers more than half. If you draw a 10ft radius circle from the corner of your square, then no - not more than half. But if you draw a 12.5 ft circle from the center of your square(hitting the back of the 2nd square 'in front' of you) then it still won't cover half.
Let's be honest - dividing the world into 5-foot squares is weird. It's an abstract, accept it or use something else.
Saying the old way is an objectively better way - because of a single strange interaction with one three-feat chain used in a specific situation(caused by somebody exploiting meta-knowledge) - is not enough for me to say "well, then I just won't try it out."
Oh, that's not the only thing!
How about this: without the 3.5 exception, it is impossible for a reach weapon user to attack a foe on his own turn in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor!
No square is 10-feet away! One is 15-feet, the next is 5-feet. Both ranges render the reach weapon unusable.
Try any houserule you like. None of them will equal the 3.5 exception for clarity, lack of domino-style problems caused, ease of use and understanding, or anything else.
Good luck!
Not quoting, just a short answer.
Rotate the grid 45 degrees...
remember: abstract
EDIT: and thanks!
DonDuckie, awhile back I mentioned it was your game so you are free to house rule any way you wish. I thought we were discussing the merits of the different house rules. At times it seems that you (and others) treat SKR's house rule as if it were in the rules instead. Perhaps that is just misperception on my part.
As for 10' radius being less than half the square, Im not sure how you are getting that. Math states it is more than half. (A^2+B^2)^0.5 = C
The distance from the corner of the square a person is standing in to the far corner of the square 2 diagonal squares distant is (10^2+10^2)^0.5 = 14.1421... feet. If you have a reach of 10 feet measured from the same starting corner then you are reaching 10 feet out of 14.1421.... feet into that second square. Thus, it is about half of the second square.
How is that half of the second square? Well, the first square is 5' right? The second square is 10'? Ok, so...we have 10-5 out of 14.14... -5 = 5 out of 9.14.... feet. 5/9.14 = 0.54 which is greater than 0.5 (1/2). Thus, yes, it is more than half.
- Gauss
You cannot rotate the grid 45 degrees in Pathfinder Society Games. In fact, rotating the grid is not within the rules so would also be a house rule. *shrugs*
- Gauss
I was in a PFS game a few weeks ago where the GM didn't believe me that you couldn't strike the second diagonal. He had never played 3.5, it was just that the current rule is not very intuitive.
I marked the 3.5 exception as a favorite to vote for it, but in reality I use the hex grid for home games to avoid the problem all together.