Here's a better idea. Get off the grid. Use a ruler/tape measure. Measure base to base. That way, you are always measuring true distances (1 inch = 5 feet). No problems.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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.
Yes, you misunderstood him. When he said "corners you can't reach", he didn't mean corners of individual 5ft squares, he meant corners of your overall threatened area.
That is, if you threatened the second diagonal, your threatened area would be a square-shaped arrangement of threatened spaces. He's saying you don't threaten the 4 grid squares that comprise the corners of your threatened area.
Then that is my bad for misunderstanding. I also misunderstood about the AoO only happening on the approach, not on a pass-through. This was based partially on relying on the template from the PFSRD as accurate, and it's not; the threat is shaped like your typical splash weapon template, not a full square.
[quote Velkyn]JJ broke it down into half squares. You are pursuing a slippery slope argument, suggesting that if we should break it down by half squares, why not 1/60th squares (inches)? That's a slippery slope argument -- and breaking a single square into 60 "blocks" is more than an order of magnitude greater than 2 "blocks".
Actually, I was responding to a response that was breaking it down further. Technically, by JJ's argument of diagonal half-squares, you could still be within 10 feet of the creature; Kazan was showing that there are areas in the square where you could stand without threatening in my specific example, but only if you didn't 'cut' the square on a diagonal.
Regardless, I misunderstood on several counts, and apologize.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder's implementation of Reach, with the clarification from SKR/JJ, is superior to 3.5s.
In what way?
The 'clarification' results in the overturning of the concept of squares being threatened for all purposes, not just one purpose. It still leaves a reach weapon wielder unable to attack in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor! An absurd situation.
If you think that the solution is to change the rules of how the square grid works (whether by breaking the grid down into smaller elements, or by rotating the grid in some parts by DM fiat), then that's a 'solution' that doesn't solve all the problems, introduces other problems, and is complicated and unclear to boot!
Compare that to a better solution:-
"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.)"
We are all clear how this works, the grid stays where it is and in the same orientation, you get an AoO on a charging opponent even on a diagonal(!).
Having played 3rd ed since it's inception, this rule has never caused any problem!
So, in what way is the PF version 'superior'?
|
|
Realism and internal continuity. Diagonal squares are counted in a non-standard way. Pathfinder went the opposite direction of 4E. Both recognized 3.5's method had issues. I think both Pathfinder's and 4E's solutions are superior to 3.5s.
There still remains an issue with S/M characters using Reach weapons in 5' wide corridors that are oriented to the diagonal. It is a relatively easy scenario to address, and rarely encountered. I do not believe sacrificing the gains in realism from Pathfinder's system are worth addressing this corner case. If I run into it, I'll just have to house-rule it.
Threatening the diagonal is no more unrealistic than a medium creature occupying four squares while mounted!
Ah, well! Each to their own, I suppose!
As to that, the last time I looked at Gauss' poll the '3.5 exception' was winning 97-9 (discounting one person who voted both ways)!
Couldn't the second diagonal be considered either 10' or 15' depending on the situation?
An example:
If two characters were 7 squares diagonally apart, they would technically be 45' apart. Let's then say that one character (character A) wants to double move 40' (base speed of 20') towards the other character. Now, due to the diagonal mechanics, they couldn't accomplish an even 40' and would have to stop at 35' since the next square would be 45'. This leaves 1 square (15') between the two characters.
Now it's the other character's turn (character B) and they take a 5' step towards character A. Now he's adjacent and can attack him with a full attack even though he should still technically have been 15' away.
In scenarios like I just showed above, if we considered one square to be both 10' and 15', then character A could have spent his last 5' of move to remain where he was, but enter a "threatened" spot if he (or his opponent) had reach. It does require slightly more management on the DM's part to know where people are, but would help alleviate the diagonal issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does a reach weapon wielder attack a medium creature in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor?
The DM shows up to the game with a working wayfinder and a magnet.
If you want simple, gamist rules that work:
Medium creatures without Reach threaten 1 square in all directions, horizontally, vertically, and diagonally. Medium creatures with Reach cannot threaten those squares but they can threaten ALL squares in the next concentric "ring", meaning ALL squares horizontally, vertically, and diagonally adjacent to what they can threaten without a reach weapon.
It's simple, it works, and it has no holes. Sure, it means sometimes that glaive is 10' long, sometimes it's 15' long, but hey, using a grid of squares is already a simplified gamist construct, so why not also make threatened squares a simplified gamist construct.
This has the side benefit of also mostly being what the official ruling eventually landed on, although there also seems to be some confusion there too.
If you insist on a square grid but want more realism at the price of greater complexity:
Medium creatures without Reach threaten 1 square in all directions, horizontally, vertically, and diagonally. Medium creatures with Reach cannot threaten those squares but they can threaten MOST squares in the next concentric "ring", meaning All squares horizontally or vertically adjacent to what they can threaten without a reach weapon, but not including the four squares that are only diagonally adjacent (the 4 corners). That is because most (more than 50%) of each of these squares is beyond the 10' of Reach normally allowed by Reach weapons. Since most of any of these squares is too far away to hit with Reach weapons, we rule that the entire square is too far away. All actions that would provoke inside those 4 excluded diagonal squares will not provoke, including moving out of the square away from the attacker, with only one exception: Moving from those excluded squares into any square that is threatened by the Reach weapon will still provoke.
Nope, it's not RAW. It doesn't even seem to be exactly official. But it's logical, it's consistent with the rules for moving, it's more realistic (within a square grid framework), and it's still simple enough to remember.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has the side benefit of also mostly being what the official ruling eventually landed on
The official 3.5 ruling, you mean?
Alright, just making sure I am understanding this correctly: approaching a creature with 10 foot reach diagonally, the squares you are moving through go from 15' to 5'. So there is no square you are moving through that is 10' away from them. James Jacobs asserts that the gamespace has an area 10 feet away that you are in fact passing though, though it is not displayed on the grid. So my question is... where is that? During the AoO, the approaching creature is somewhere, not on the grid. We know that that somewhere is 10 feet away, so sure, the AoO can be made. But what about readied actions and other actors? The rules don't seem to provide a sufficiently defined space for the approaching creature.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, just making sure I am understanding this correctly: approaching a creature with 10 foot reach diagonally, the squares you are moving through go from 15' to 5'. So there is no square you are moving through that is 10' away from them. James Jacobs asserts that the gamespace has an area 10 feet away that you are in fact passing though, though it is not displayed on the grid. So my question is... where is that? During the AoO, the approaching creature is somewhere, not on the grid. We know that that somewhere is 10 feet away, so sure, the AoO can be made. But what about readied actions and other actors? The rules don't seem to provide a sufficiently defined space for the approaching creature.
...exactly!
In which square does the charging foe fall when I use my AoO to trip him? No matter which square (5-feet or 15-feet) he falls in, why can't my next Combat Reflexes-granted AoO get him when he stands up? Why can't my spear reach him when he is prone when it's my turn?
In the name of all that is holy, use the 3.5 exception!
Alright, just making sure I am understanding this correctly: approaching a creature with 10 foot reach diagonally, the squares you are moving through go from 15' to 5'. So there is no square you are moving through that is 10' away from them. James Jacobs asserts that the gamespace has an area 10 feet away that you are in fact passing though, though it is not displayed on the grid. So my question is... where is that? During the AoO, the approaching creature is somewhere, not on the grid. We know that that somewhere is 10 feet away, so sure, the AoO can be made. But what about readied actions and other actors? The rules don't seem to provide a sufficiently defined space for the approaching creature.
If you have a readied action for "when X is 10 ft away" or the like it triggers on X's movement between squares 15' and 5'
If its something like a normal AoO you make your attack, deal your damage and let the approaching creature finish its movement action.
The only ambiguity to me is if you do something to stop that movement. Trips or Hold whatevers beg the question of where the targeted moving creature ends up.
The statements on the last page suggest to me they would revert to the 15' square but I can't describe why well.
You could maybe convince a GM to leave your stopped target on the point between the 15' and 5' squares if there's no further complications just remember the stopped creature is 10' away from you for any relevant case. And that moving to any of the four squares around the 10' point is a 5 ft first diagonal movement.
Though that would need a further ruling on any third party entering this equation.
Ultimately a square grid can't handle a radius. You can probably exploit any way you rule this tactically... but that's why you have a GM to make calls for just cases like this. I know I'd prefer the "reality" of the radius being honored however wonky the grid over say the magically growing reach weapon. (Reach is awesome enough thank you)
That makes me think. While being able to hit the 15' diagonal square may seem simple for medium creatures with reach...
What about greater Reach lengths. Reach plus Lunge and Enlarge Person. And Huge etc creatures built with the same?
And if you can reach the 15' diagonal with a 10' reach, what about AoOs against those that simply pass through that 15' space and never approach closer. Especially when thats a monster using it against you.
Personally, I find the Pathfinder method is far superior - with the only oddity being when two reach creatures (usually standing 2+ inches tall on the map), can't attack each other with one full diagonal between them. One side-step and their good. I play plenty of reach users, and it's not a big deal. Adds some nice tactical options too if you can lock-down a large creature.
And it is simple. You don't threaten the 15'/2-diagonal square. You *do* threaten if someone takes more than a 5' step coming through there.
I know the game says "squares", but saying "I charge from an angle" is just a loophole that needs to be fixed. It does not make sense. They should just put the old language back in.
The sensible way to do it is go by the range a monster can threaten, not squares. IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just use the 3.5 exception. I never had any problem with it and I still don't understand why Pathfinder needed to have an errata for this. Not using the 3.5 exception is like trying to probe the mind of a Hound of Tindalos: it can make your head explode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I find the Pathfinder method is far superior - with the only oddity being when two reach creatures (usually standing 2+ inches tall on the map), can't attack each other with one full diagonal between them. One side-step and their good. I play plenty of reach users, and it's not a big deal. Adds some nice tactical options too if you can lock-down a large creature.
And it is simple. You don't threaten the 15'/2-diagonal square. You *do* threaten if someone takes more than a 5' step coming through there.
In what way is it ''far superior''?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just use the 3.5 exception. I never had any problem with it and I still don't understand why Pathfinder needed to have an errata for this. Not using the 3.5 exception is like trying to probe the mind of a Hound of Tindalos: it can make your head explode.
I understand how it came about that they didn't use the 3.5 exception in the original printing. I don't understand why they didn't adopt it once it was realized it was missing. Either option is some sort of compromise that is required by the use of squares.
Using the 3.5 exception has the advantage of being consistent on the subject of game mastery with regard to threatened squares and AoOs. It has the downside of making reach weapons more powerful.
Using the move-through-10-feet=AoO ruling reduces the strength of reach weapons and results in a different exception, now one related to what is effectively an invisible square. Its downside is in game mastery and in what is a 4e-esque non-Euclidean geometry.
The PF version results in more oddities and loopholes. It addresses AoOs for movement at the cost of AoOs for all other provoking actions, allows for a caster to cast-move-touch, makes the Ride-by-Attack situation more complicated, etc.