#2: The eagle (and the owlbear) get 3 attacks, 2 claws and 1 bite.
For the eagle you roll a d20+3 for each of the 3 attacks.
You can choose to use any one of those three attacks if you move then attack.
#1: This is a can of worms. As Dungeon Master you decide, make your players happy and have fun.
#4: I'm on your side. It is NOT like a pokemon battle.
|
their argument is contingent on the distance from the Eagle's beak and the wolf's tail..which shouldn't even be necessary, because we are given their sizes - 5ft small creature, 10 ft large long creature. So, which is it?
You count squares.
So, if the eagle was flanking the wolf with an ally, the eagle and ally would be 15 feet away from each other, because you count the two squares that the wolf takes up, plus the square that your ally is in.
|
#3. If the sorcerer can't communicate with the summoned monster, it will still attack his/her enemies.
This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions...
The large creature (all large creatures occupy 4 squares, long or tall. Long or tall only has to do with the reach of the creature) is 10 feet across. Counting from the eagle, the far side of the large creature is 10 feet away. 2 squares is 10 feet. So, firing at the worg from the far side would not incur the 'in melee' penalty.
Why doesn't the ranger have precise shot?
The eagle and the wolf are considered to be constantly moving, twisting and turning, watching their backs, etc. during combat.
Also remember that a large (long) wolf takes up a space that is 10 ft. by 10 ft., a total of 4 squares. The wolf has no back to shoot at mechanically by the rules.
|
|
The eagle and the wolf are considered to be constantly moving, twisting and turning, watching their backs, etc. during combat.
Also remember that a large (long) wolf takes up a space that is 10 ft. by 10 ft., a total of 4 squares. The wolf has no back to shoot at mechanically by the rules.
The way flanking works in Pathfinder (and earlier D&D) is specifically to take facing and its complications out of the game. You are correct, there is no 'back' to shoot at. Unless, the creature is being flanked. Opponents on both sides at the same time.
|
|
The back square is 10 feet away from the eagle. Specifically, this is how far it is away. That is 'within' 10 feet.
Notice, adjacent squares are 5 feet apart. You have to move 5 feet, or take a 5-foot step to get from one to the other.
Two squares with an intervening square are 10 feet apart. You cannot take a 5-foot step to get from one to the other (neglecting bizarre abilities, of course.)
Just count the squares. It isn't that difficult, if you understand that this is a game and they try to make the rules simple. Don't worry about twisting and turning inside the square, just count the squares.
For area of effect spells and such, you have to start at an intersection, but when you are counting from one creature to another it is just squares.
|
|
'At least' includes the amount being considered, in this case, 10 feet.
'More than' does not include the amount being considered, in this case, 10 feet.
10 feet is 2 squares. If you are attacking something 2 squares from the eagle, it is 10 feet away. Maybe they should have used squares in the description of the rules, but that's what it means.
think of the squares as nodes and less as squares. why? because squares do not overlap at all and do not technically have overlapping sides. you almost universally use the corner of squares or the center of squares, but not the sides. and when you use corners you usually use the same corner from the target square
so moving from X - Y is always this much in almost any circumstance
XY - 5
X-Y - 10
X--Y - 15
the last one replace dashes with Dire Wolf and you see the opposite side is 15 feet away.
also, all aoe should originate from a corner.
In pathfinder the smallest unit of measurement in combat is a 5x5 square. The distance between two points X and Y is always calculated as the number of squares between those two points multiplied by 5 feet. It is also important to note that when measuring the distance between two squares you measure from the same point in both squares.
It is for this reason that a player does not have to worry if he/she can attack a creature that is in an adjacent square (even though at times during a round the distance between them might be greater than 5 feet). This is partly to do with the fact that, in combat, creatures are considered to be constantly moving about within their squares for the duration of a round. As such pathfinder decides that any creature in an adjacent square can be and is considered to be 5 feet from myself, and any creature in a square one past that is considered to be 10 feet from myself. Any distance that does not fall in a 5 foot increment increment does not need to be taken into consideration by players or the DM. While not 100% realistic it does simplify the game a great deal. For this very reason you also do not need to worry about the diagonal distance of squares.
This page provides some good visuals for distance measuring as an added resource : http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/space-reach-threatened-area-te mplates
At least 10 feet away. Not 'more than' 10 feet away. count the squares from the eagle. The far side of the worg is 2 squares away; that is 10 feet.In pathfinder the smallest unit of measurement in combat is a 5x5 square. The distance between two points X and Y is always calculated as the number of squares between those two points multiplied by 5 feet. Take for example the following:
[a][b][c]
Any point within square A is considered to be within 5 feet of any other point in square B. Any point within square C is considered to be within 10 feet of any point square A. While in reality there are points in A that are greater than 5 feet from other points in B, any distance less than a square is not relevant for rules application purposes.
this is inherently flawed, as objects cannot exist between squares, anything between a and b is either 0 feet away and in your square, or 5 feet away and not in your square.
this is inherently flawed, as objects cannot exist between squares, anything between a and b is either 0 feet away and in your square, or 5 feet away and not in your square.At least 10 feet away. Not 'more than' 10 feet away. count the squares from the eagle. The far side of the worg is 2 squares away; that is 10 feet.In pathfinder the smallest unit of measurement in combat is a 5x5 square. The distance between two points X and Y is always calculated as the number of squares between those two points multiplied by 5 feet. Take for example the following:
[a][b][c]
Any point within square A is considered to be within 5 feet of any other point in square B. Any point within square C is considered to be within 10 feet of any point square A. While in reality there are points in A that are greater than 5 feet from other points in B, any distance less than a square is not relevant for rules application purposes.
You may note that I edited my answer between when I initially posted and between my reply. I reread your answer and agree with it.
However nothing about the point you called out is flawed, in fact you said the same thing I did. My reasoning did not imply that objects could exist between squares. It was just pointing out that "in reality" I could be at the back corner of my square A and you could be at the opposite corner of your square B, but for all intents and purposes we are never considered to be farther than 5 feet away from each other by pathfinder, hence pathfinder only caring about distance if it exists in 5 foot increments including 0
3. My sorcerer uses Summon Monster A LOT, which is fine. The rules indicate that if you can talk with the animal, you can point out specific targets and whether or not the summoned monster attacks. Does this constitute a handle animal check or is it simply inherent to the spell? Secondly, does this mean, without instruction, that the summoned monster will simply aggro to the closest enemy until it dissipates? If it kills that enemy, does it re-aggro if possible?
First, it is treated like an animal for intents and purposes so you need to do a handle animal check. It doesn't attack the closest enemy, as it can't tell friend from ally. Unfortunately, Some GM's force the standard action handle animal check for animals. I personally do. If you can speak the language it can be a free action, for example if you speak ignan with a fire elemental, infernal with a devil, or have a speak with animals spell active. In the old days, celestial creatures understood celestial, fiendish creatures understood abyssal and infernal.
4) My group recently fought two dire wolves - which are Large Long creatures (5ft reach/10ft long). Our Sorcerer summoned an Eagle to attack one of the wolves. Meanwhile, our Ranger positioned himself in a way to get line of sight on its back, and shot.Normally, when a creature is in melee combat, it constitutes a -4 to hit for ranged weapons. However, because the dire wolf is x2 bigger than the Eagle it was fighting, it changes to a -2. That is fine. However, some members of the group started arguing that there should be no penalty for shooting the back of the wolf because of the size differential.
The rule states that, "If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character."
I was under the impression that this meant Huge creatures or greater (or creatures that have a 10ft reach). Considering large long creatures are only 10 ft with a 5 ft reach, they, in my opinion, therefore could not possibly be considered "at least 10 feet away" in any way. However, the members started to argue space in the sense of length of the creatures involved, and BETWEEN the creatures involved. Something like "Well, you're assuming that the creatures are touching heads...there would be space between..." and so on. To me, this is incorrect.
In my opinion, the space a creature takes up and its adjacent threatened squares constitute a "battle zone" where the eagle and wolf are fighting in melee - a la, jumping/flying around and fighting, constantly clashing and moving around, you know...like a real fight - which means that though the wolf is large, you still have a chance to shoot your ally, as they are constantly moving. Thus, the need for a penalty.
However, my group seems to believe that, for all intents and purposes, it's more like a pokemon battle. Where the wolf and eagle are stationary until they take their turns, there is a space between them that they cross only to attack, and then they reset. If this is so, then their argument is contingent on the distance from the Eagle's beak and the wolf's tail..which shouldn't even be necessary, because we are given their sizes - 5ft small creature, 10 ft large long creature. So, which is it?
Is the large creature outside of the rule because it isn't long enough in congruence with the squares, or should I be taking out my measuring tape each combat, gathering the sizes of each animal, and the "assumed" distance between them, and making rules based on "well, the eagle is 3.75 feet, there is 1 foot between, and the wolf is 9.02 feet, which means you can shoot at the tail of the wolf without penalty"?
Sorry for the long post, but these are the issues!
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. this means, if one threatens the other, it happens.
If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
[/b] Take this example, you have a Colossal Red Dragon, and a Huge Gold dragon. The blue dragon is 10 feet away from the Red Dragon. They are considered to be engaged -4. However, because the Huge dragon is 10 feet away, thanks to the size difference when shooting the red dragon you do not suffer the -4 penalty to attack rolls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, it is treated like an animal for intents and purposes so you need to do a handle animal check. It doesn't attack the closest enemy, as it can't tell friend from ally.
3. My sorcerer uses Summon Monster A LOT, which is fine. The rules indicate that if you can talk with the animal, you can point out specific targets and whether or not the summoned monster attacks. Does this constitute a handle animal check or is it simply inherent to the spell? Secondly, does this mean, without instruction, that the summoned monster will simply aggro to the closest enemy until it dissipates? If it kills that enemy, does it re-aggro if possible?
I think most people play it that summoned creatures automatically know who the summoner considers an enemy and attacks them to the best of their abilities. Anything more complicated requires a means of communication.
The spell specifically says the summoned creature(s) attack your enemies. Period, the end.