|
I accept that someone approaching a creature with 10' reach diagonally will provoke an opportunity. That is not what this is about.
If moving through the second square diagonally from a creature with reach provokes an AoO, do other opportunity attack provoking actions do so as well? Tonight in our PFS game I made an attack of opportunity against a character making a ranged attack in that square. While I am happy with the outcome of the call in this one instance, I would like some clarification for the next time this situation arises.
Thanks
Tam
firstly I'm a bit confused, but if I am understanding you correctly, you can not take an AOO at a 10' "diagonal" square. You see, there's no such thing as a 10' diagonal square. Diagonals are counted 5,15,20,30, etc.. If you had 15' reach, you could make the attack.
But to answer the question in more general terms, yes, if you have a long reach you can make an AOO any time an opponent makes an action that provokes an AOO, including movement, shooting a ranged weapon, casting a spell, standing up from prone, etc, etc, etc...
|
|
In 3.5 the charging at a diagonal loop hole allowed people to charge creatures with 10ft reach without provoking attacks of opportunity.I believe that it is somewhere in the errata for Pathfinder it was spelled out that this does not work and is simply a gimmick of the square grid. Even though the character is moving in increments of 5', 15', 20' etc, their are still moving through 10' to 5' or 15' depending on how you count it.
Tam
|
|
I don't mind being wrong. And I can see why you would think I am. But my statement is based on the following quote.
just because the grid has a square for "15 feet away" and a square for "5 feet away," but no square for "10 feet away," using that corner path doesn't mean you're magically teleporting from 15 feet to 5 feet; you are passing through a 10-foot-radius band around the creature, and therefore you provoke an AOO.
Jason admits it's not clear, and obviously it doesn't have the diagram in the 3E book to provide a non-textual example, but it's supposed to work as I described above.
But even if you disagree with me, that's cool. This isn't my question.
Tam
If a character with reach gets an attack of opportunity when an enemy leaves a threatened diagonal, then a character in a threatened diagonal would provoke on any action that normally would provoke. And based on SKR's quote, it seems that would be the case.
The whole 5\15 thing is simply to avoid having to measure movement in half-steps. Moving diagonally on such a grid would roughly equate to moving 7.5 feet through a 25-square foot area, but to make it easier they 'kludge' it to 5\15.
In some cases you may be able to avoid an AoO by not taking the diagonal, and instead moving through four five-foot squares instead; assuming you are moving at least two diagonals, the distance figures out to be the same.
[edit]
(Derp, fixed my "three four-foot squares" mistake. Time to head to bed, lol)
I can't believe this is still being discussed. I guess such is the nature of internet forums. SKR's ruling is pretty final, as you have shown Tam. To try and apply different logic to different forms of AOO is unnecessary in this instance as, clearly, the diagonal squares still provoke. There's nothing 'special' about movement based AOOs that would make them provoke when other actions do not - especially when you consider that fact that moving *away* from the character would still provoke an AOO in that square.
|
The 1st problem is that Paizo failed to use the wording in 3.x (think it was in the monster manuals) that explained in those books that for the purpose of reach, the second diagonal did not count as or at 15 feet, but the 3rd,5th and so on odd numbered squares did count as 10 instead of 5. The second problem is that Paizo has failed to do a good job of correcting the error. I do not know if the problem is if that portion of the old rules are not open licens or if it is something else. Maybe they do not want to change the text in the books so much that it would be a pain to rework the lines of text.
In the better rules of reach, where you would just simply be able to attack there, all of those would provoke.
In society where you have to hope a GM is reasonable, expect table variation. I would expect most of them to say no. That comes from a society GM that uses many PC with reach himself. I find these actions that provoke do not happen often. Expect the GM to decide you do not threaten those squares and thus they do not provoke in those squares and they do whatever theynwant or they say it does provoke, in that case do not expect the NPCs to do such an action in those squares.
You don't get an AoO because you aren't threatening the diagonal square.
EDITING TO BUMP DIAGRAM DOWN
.
.
.
_TTTE
T__AT
T_P_T
T___T
_TTT_
E = Enemy
P = PC
T = Threatened square
The phenomenon that SKR describes to allow an AoO on diagonal movement is specifically because even though the diagram doesn't have a threatened "square" that they are moving out of, they can't avoid passing through your threat radius going from E to A.
I would argue that you wouldn't get an AoO if the enemy was moving from that diagonal to a threatened square (E to T) as that is a different scenario. (You don't have to pass close enough in the diagonal square to be within range of the PCs weapon.)
|
If you are wielding a reach weapon and someone charges towards you in a straight, diagonal line, I would personally let you get your attack of opportunity, despite the rules saying otherwise, because conceptually at some point they are 10 feet away from you, but under no circumstance would you ever "threaten" two diagonals away, since that is, in every sense of the game, 15 feet away from you.
Your quote from SKR seems to only apply to this limited application, but I see no official errata or FAQ post about it, so as others have said, if you're in a PFS game, expect table variation.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
How does a reach weapon wielder attack a medium creature in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor?
Reorient the grid so that the corridor isn't "diagonal"? The grid only exists as an abstraction to assist with placement and visualization, it's not part of the game world. If your suspension of disbelief/sense of verisimilitude is hampered by the grid you're doing it wrong.
How does a reach weapon wielder attack a medium creature in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor?
Your GM is a jerk is how
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to the rules, the 2nd diagonal square is 15-feet away, and thus you do not threaten that square with a 10' reach weapon.
This means a creature can approach on the diagonal without ever provoking an AoO, because it never leaves a threatened square.
In 3.5, there was a special exception for 10' reach, they allowed you to threaten that extra 2nd diagonal, even though it was actually 15' away. (d20 source)
Paizo did not copy that exception into Pathfinder.
Sean K Reynolds (Designer) posted in late 2012 about how he conferred with Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) about the ruling that, while you do not threaten the 2nd diagonal, you do threaten a 10-foot band across which a creature must pass in order to move up adjacent to you.
Thread summary:
SKR 2: The 10-foot-radius band.
SKR 4: Confirmation that this post "sounds right".
SKR 5: The 3.5 rule is simpler, but that's not PFRPG.
SKR 6: The RAW is not in error.
do other opportunity attack provoking actions do so as well?
No, your PFS judge was technically in error. If it helps, the overwhelming majority of people who responded to Gauss' Poll also use the 3.5 exception. One could argue that using that exception is PFS legal due to the common sense clause, and how long it would take to explain the clarification.
|
How does a reach weapon wielder attack a medium creature in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor?Reorient the grid so that the corridor isn't "diagonal"? The grid only exists as an abstraction to assist with placement and visualization, it's not part of the game world. If your suspension of disbelief/sense of verisimilitude is hampered by the grid you're doing it wrong.
....or use the 3.5 rule....y'know, whichever is better....
|
Highly recommend using the 3.5 exception. Otherwise, your polearm-using fighter is going to be unhappy when confronted with a 5-foot wide hallway at 45 degrees with respect to the grid...
While the "charging a large creature" part of SKR's statements make sense, the rules seem to break down when talking about reach weapons, as strictly, it seems the fighter can't reach into the adjacent diagonal OR the second diagonal. Have I missed anything correcting this issue?
|
|
I accept that someone approaching a creature with 10' reach diagonally will provoke an opportunity. That is not what this is about.
If moving through the second square diagonally from a creature with reach provokes an AoO, do other opportunity attack provoking actions do so as well? Tonight in our PFS game I made an attack of opportunity against a character making a ranged attack in that square. While I am happy with the outcome of the call in this one instance, I would like some clarification for the next time this situation arises.
Thanks
Tam
Two squares away should still be a threatened square.
The monster has 10ft reach so the monster threatens half that square as the far corner is 15ft away.Things only get tricky with 15ft reach, where the corners are not threatened as the 15ft is the two diagonals and the third diagonal is essentially 16-20ft.
|
|
How does a reach weapon wielder attack a medium creature in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor?Reorient the grid so that the corridor isn't "diagonal"? The grid only exists as an abstraction to assist with placement and visualization, it's not part of the game world. If your suspension of disbelief/sense of verisimilitude is hampered by the grid you're doing it wrong.
I've seen this issue come up and the DM refuse to reorient the grid. The person with the reach weapon was unable to attack until he changed weapons.
|
|
I've seen this issue come up and the DM refuse to reorient the grid. The person with the reach weapon was unable to attack until he changed weapons.
The game assumes people are going to figure them out in such a way as to not make possible things impossible. There are multiple solutions to this problem, including rotating the grid and adopting the 3.5 rule. Selecting, "You can't get there from here," is either deliberately obtuse, or give him the benefit of the doubt and call it ignorance.
|
|
Highly recommend using the 3.5 exception. Otherwise, your polearm-using fighter is going to be unhappy when confronted with a 5-foot wide hallway at 45 degrees with respect to the grid...
While the "charging a large creature" part of SKR's statements make sense, the rules seem to break down when talking about reach weapons, as strictly, it seems the fighter can't reach into the adjacent diagonal OR the second diagonal. Have I missed anything correcting this issue?
If you're in a narrow corridor that's single-square diagonal, you just adjust the grid for that case. Again, the grid is an aid to visualization, not a shackle. Just estimate the rectilinear distance of the corridor and set it so that it works linearly rather than diagonally. Alternatively, sub-divide your grid. Instead of 1 square being 5', 1 square becomes 1.25'. Then, since you're counting more discrete square sizes, you can more easily visualize where they cross the band of your reach.
X|< - 5 - > | < -10- >
D|o o o o o|h h h h h
-+-----------+-----------
o|o o o o o|h h h h h ^
o|o o o o h|h h h h o |
o|o o o o h|h h h h o 5
o|o o o h h|h h h o o |
o|o h h h h|h h h o o v
-+-----------+-----------
h|h h h h h|h h o o o ^
h|h h h h h|h h o o o |
h|h h h h h|o o o o o 10
h|h h h o o|o o o o o |
h|h o o o o|o o o o o vD= The bottom right corner of the character
o= places he cannot attack
h= places he can attackThis diagram also shows that those who argue that "If you can attack "into" any part of the square, you threaten it" doesn't hold water when saying you will threaten the 15' square as a houserule just because you can attack into that little corner part because, as is plainly shown, you can also attack "into" the 5' adjacent square (and to a greater degree, mind you). That's why holding too hard to a mechanic like this is problematic, especially when confronted with a loophole that cannot be adequately rectified in some other manner.
That's one solution....another is to twist the grid...in some parts....
The best solution is the original 3.5 reach weapon rule in which reach weapons threaten that second diagonal. Job done, no messing!
[edit]
Reading James J's statement, there's some contradiction here. But if that's the ruling, then that's the ruling, even though it's a contradiction of the rules (since the RAW does not indicate that you threaten only a portion of a square, but that you threaten the whole thing).
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/space-reach-threatened-area-te mplates
That's not an official resource, it's player created and incorrect.
A creature with 10' reach threatens on the second diagonal.
This is not true, and we've posted both the actual rules, as well as the developers stating so.
The rules on threat state that a creature threatens a square, and it implies that it threatens on any action that provokes. So either the square is threatened, or it is not; there is no RAW to support the idea is threatened for one action, but not for another.
Only as long as your definition of RAW doesn't include SKR/JBs clarification.
|
|
Incorrect. A creature with 10' reach threatens on the second diagonal. The geography is not based on the same concept as splash weapons, but on a square. The second diagonal is not exempt from threat, for any purpose.
The rules on threat state that a creature threatens a square, and it implies that it threatens on any action that provokes. So either the square is threatened, or it is not; there is no RAW to support the idea is threatened for one action, but not for another.
In this case it is, and therefore it is threatened - for all purposes.
Broken link.
Also, remember that the SRD is a fan-based site, not an official rules site.
I edited my statement, because I didn't see James J's statement on that page.
I stand by the fact that they're contradicting their own RAW, since the rules on threat state you threaten a square, not part of it. But oh well.
Let me offer a situation where James' justification of why you don't threaten completely breaks:
He claims that you don't threaten the second diagonal because there is at least one corner where you cannot reach.
What about this situation?
[R1][..][..][..][..]
[..][..][..][..][..]
[..][..][TT][..][..]
[..][..][..][..][..]
[..][..][..][..][R2]
R1, R2= Creature with 10' reach
TT = Casting a spell
James' argument is based on the idea that TT could stand in the northwest corner of his square, and therefore be out of reach of the R1. But in that situation, he must be standing in an area threatened by R2.
|
|
I edited my statement, because I didn't see James J's statement on that page.
I stand by the fact that they're contradicting their own RAW, since the rules on threat state you threaten a square, not part of it. But oh well.
You're right! The PF version of reach weapons is a mess!
The 3.5 version works perfectly though.
I wonder what the best solution could be....?
I edited my statement, because I didn't see James J's statement on that page.
I stand by the fact that they're contradicting their own RAW, since the rules on threat state you threaten a square, not part of it. But oh well.
You're right! The PF version of reach weapons is a mess!
The 3.5 version works perfectly though.
I wonder what the best solution could be....?
I will stick with the idea that if you threaten a square, you threaten a square.
That might be a house rule at this point, but as I tried to show with my above diagram, there are situations where the whole "you don't threaten the second diagonal ever, because you can stand in a place in the square where you're out of reach" breaks down.
|
|
I edited my statement, because I didn't see James J's statement on that page.
I stand by the fact that they're contradicting their own RAW, since the rules on threat state you threaten a square, not part of it. But oh well.
You're right! The PF version of reach weapons is a mess!
The 3.5 version works perfectly though.
I wonder what the best solution could be....?
I will stick with the idea that if you threaten a square, you threaten a square.
That might be a house rule at this point, but as I tried to show with my above diagram, there are situations where the whole "you don't threaten the second diagonal ever, because you can stand in a place in the square where you're out of reach" breaks down.
...re-enforced by the rule that a medium creature mounted on a (large) horse counts as being in all four squares for purposes of both threatening and being threatened.
Diagonal movement is 7.5' per square. So in your example, standing in the center of a square two diagonals away, you are 11.25' away (7.5+3.75). That is further than 10'. No AOO.
Except that a person takes up space, right? Last time I checked, anyway. They aren't an infinitely-thin compressed body standing exactly on the 11.25 space, taking up no more of the square.
The average person standing at the center point of the square, 11.25' away, is roughly 1'3"-1'6" front-to-back, and over two feet wide across the shoulders.
Meaning part of them, no matter how they stand, is within 10' of the target. Now, for small races that might not be true - but the threat rules do not make exceptions for avoiding threat for small races.
Pathfinder's implementation of Reach, with the clarification from SKR/JJ, is superior to 3.5s.
I disagree. And for the reasons that I point out above. Not only does the "threaten when you move\don't threaten when you cast" idea contradict the basic concept of threat (i.e., that you threaten a whole square, with no written rules at all for threatening only part of a square), but the overall rationality behind avoiding threat from casting on a diagonal does not consistently stand up to a situation that could easily arise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you move from being 15' away from someone to 5' away from someone without, at some point, passing through (ie, leaving) at point 10' away from them?
-Skeld
Quantum physics. :D
But seriously, I never heard of reach weapons not threatening the second diagonal square before. This is nonsense to me. IF that's not how Pathfinder reach weapons work, then I recommend everyone to use the 3.5 rule for reach weapons.
I edited my statement, because I didn't see James J's statement on that page.
I stand by the fact that they're contradicting their own RAW, since the rules on threat state you threaten a square, not part of it. But oh well.
Let me offer a situation where James' justification of why you don't threaten completely breaks:
He claims that you don't threaten the second diagonal because there is at least one corner where you cannot reach.
What about this situation?
[R1][. .][. .][. .][. .]
[. .][. .][. .][. .][. .]
[. .][. .][TT][. .][. .]
[. .][. .][. .][. .][. .]
[. .][. .][. .][. .][R2]R1, R2= Creature with 10' reach
TT = Casting a spellJames' argument is based on the idea that TT could stand in the northwest corner of his square, and therefore be out of reach of the R1. But in that situation, he must be standing in an area threatened by R2.
That depends on how much of the 5' square a character takes up. Go back to my example of breaking it down to each 5' square being a 5x5 square of 1.25' squares.
Here is a representation of the exact setup you proffered. You can see that there is ample room to sit out of reach of both spear-men in the 3x3 square of "d's". That represents a 3.75' square and I'd expect most medium-sized adventurers don't measure much more than 3' across even in a particularly wide stance.
** spoiler omitted **...
Let's apply that to the other ruling then as well: Does that mean that a small creature can move through that diagonal without provoking?
After all, if we're going to break things down to such a level, then a halfling could move through the edges of that square the furthest from the creature on the diagonal and never pass through that 10' range of threat.
But according to JB and SKR's ruling, that doesn't seem to be the case... It should be, based on JJ's rationale for avoiding an AoO from casting.
Personally, I will avoid breaking it down to such a granular state, and unless Pathfinder really wants to get hugely complicated, then my suggestion would be to let the threat rules stand as they are - you threaten a square, and all of it - and then apply that to the second diagonal with reach, and say either you threaten it, or you don't (not threaten it for this, but not for that).
|
|
Am I correct to think that by using the 3.5 exception you can make an attack of opportunity against a character making a ranged attack while standing in the second diagonal square away?
For the record, I am the GM in question. I accept that I probably shouldn't have made the opportunity. I just want to nail this down for future reference.
Do we feel confident that this is covered by the common sense clause?
Tam
Am I correct to think that by using the 3.5 exception you can make an attack of opportunity against a character making a ranged attack while standing in the second diagonal square away?
Yes.
d20 Reach Weapons: "Note: Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten 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.)"
There are versions (all versions?) of the Pathfinder CRB that include a diagram granting this same 15' reach to creatures with 10' reach.
This is not the case.
You're the one who asserts that creatures can "move through the edges", not SKR/JJ. Nowhere in Pathfinder (or 3.X) rules is the grid broken down to such a granular level.
That is my point: JJ is breaking it down to that level.
James Jacobs: 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.
By arguing that there are places in a square where you can't reach, he is implying that his logic is based on breaking down the squares to into 'sub-squares', some of which you can't reach from two diagonals away.
Am I misunderstanding that? If my understanding of it is wrong, or there's another way to rationally interpret "there'll be corners where you can't reach", then I don't mind being corrected.
For clarification, I disagree with that idea. I don't think it should be broken down so much. But I also think that if a square is threatened, it should be threatened, for all purposes. My disagreement comes in with the idea that movement through it threatens, but casting in it doesn't, because the logic behind threat in the former but not the latter opens the whole thing up to a rational argument for "moving through the edges".
|
|
The actual ruling on threatening while moving is on the approach. You only get the AOO when an opponent is approaching you from the square two diagonals away, not when moving in other directions. This is because they have to get closer to you to go from 15 feet away, to 5 feet away. There's no corner to hide in.
|
Here's another thing to point out; a 10' reach threatens more of the 5' square than it does of the 15' square. If anything, a 10' reach weapon should be able to attack the 5' square and not the 15' square (the invert of the 3.5 exception). Moreover, when you move from the 15' square to the 5' square, you're entering the threat band but, if you consider a character to "occupy" the whole 5' square, you don't leave the threat band; and leaving a threatened square is what provokes, not just sitting in it. So if you want a "simple exception", the better one is that you can attack the first diagonal with a reach weapon but not the second. Which, as I stated, sets up a whole new set of loopholes; we go from the 5' wide diagonal corridor problem where you can attack someone "adjacent" to you to the 5' wide rectilinear corridor where you must step back from them to attack/provoke.
The rules under reach weapons specifically states that you can't attack the adjacent squares, thus not threatening them.