| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A GM who doesn't let a tiny longspear give reach of 5ft is being needlessly pedantic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A GM that gives a tiny longspear 5ft reach is creating a houserule and can't be done in PFS. A tiny creature's reach is 0ft, not 2.5ft. Double your reach for reach weapon 0*2=0ft.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A GM that gives a tiny longspear 5ft reach is creating a houserule and can't be done in PFS. A tiny creature's reach is 0ft, not 2.5ft. Double your reach for reach weapon 0*2=0ft.
Which is a fine way to rule (0 ft reach with reach weapon) and I'd say your going by RAW.
But I'm also RAW saying 2.5*2 = 5 ft reach:
- Tiny space is 2.5 and all nature reach > 0 is equal to space.
- Lots of 4 and 5 star GM think going by JJs rulings are fine
- All reach weapon using tiny stat blocks have reach 5 ft
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM who doesn't let a tiny longspear give reach of 5ft is being needlessly pedantic.Ha!
Needlessly pedantic is an olympic level sport around here. :]
No it isn't. To become an Olympic sport, an activity must go through a long application process. Needlessly Pedantry hasn't even gotten the initial approval from the International Olympic Activity and there is no International Sports Federation that governs Needless Pedantry. Furthermore, Needlessly Pedantry wouldn't qualify under the Olympic Charter because it is not a sufficiently physical activity.
A GM that gives a tiny longspear 5ft reach is creating a houserule and can't be done in PFS. A tiny creature's reach is 0ft, not 2.5ft. Double your reach for reach weapon 0*2=0ft.Which is a fine way to rule (0 ft reach with reach weapon) and I'd say your going by RAW.
But I'm also RAW saying 2.5*2 = 5 ft reach:
- Tiny space is 2.5 and all nature reach > 0 is equal to space.
- Lots of 4 and 5 star GM think going by JJs rulings are fine
- All reach weapon using tiny stat blocks have reach 5 ft
There's no rule that says the explicitly listed reach of 0ft is actually 2.5ft. Nor any rule that reach is equal to space, and that idea is completely shut down but the long large creatures. Like a horse, that is large aka space 10ft and still only has 5ft reach.
that GM is saying that using them to help you decide on a view if there's not a clear one is a good idea. NOT that their views can be used if they run opposite of RAW. Like Marks says lots of time "technically the rule is probably this, but I'd run it like this" This doesn't mean we can run it like Mark, we have to run it like as the rules say.
The listed creature is using a spear. A spear is a two-handed simple non-reach weapon. Why that creature gets 5ft reach with a non-reach weapon is unknown to me. But monsters and NPC are frequently riddled with errors and don't indicate rules.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Like Marks says lots of time "technically the rule is probably this, but I'd run it like this" This doesn't mean we can run it like Mark, we have to run it like as the rules say.
The listed creature is using a spear.
The cool thing is, I think the rules do say double reach on a tiny guy is 5 ft and I'll use James Jacobs, Jason Bulmahn saying he'd look at why it was removed (but nothing happened years later), Twigjack, and other creatures.
You are welcome to not do so, I'll do so. We both are RAW as far as I'm concerned, it's just the RAW meaning is totally opposite. Call it table variance.
Cool, yet another error in a stat blocks. The author was probably thinking Longspear. Probably likely because they didn't list a ranged attack with the spear and ranged attack is the only difference between spear and longspear.
You don't have ANY raw this time James.
You have nothing that says a tiny with reach is 5ft. You have tiny's normal reach is 0ft and that a reach weapon doubles their natural reach.
JJ and JB saying they'd look into it and having nothing changed would indicate that it wasn't supposed to be there.
THE TWIGJACK ISN'T USING A REACH WEAPON! You can't use the twigjack as a rule source to say tiny's reach is 5ft when he's not even using reach. It's like the one troll that is medium with 10ft reach, that's just what he is, not some rule to prove that medium creatures have 10ft reach normally. You shouldn't assume that the creator made a mistake but instead intended what they did.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Well, I guess you can rule it as you like.
I'll continue to rule as I see the rules and I'll use posts like this to advise my RAW:
- James Jacobs describing what the "game speak" for double reach actually means
- Another James Jacobs not saying "I'd rule" as much as "this is how the rules work".
- Adam Dagile on the subject for 3.5
- DMG 3.5 has a line not in the SRD "Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine creatures have no natural reach. They must enter an opponent’s square (and thus be subject to an attack of opportunity) in order to attack that opponent in melee unless they are armed with weapons that give them at least 5 feet of reach" (Page 29)"
Like Marks says lots of time "technically the rule is probably this, but I'd run it like this" This doesn't mean we can run it like Mark, we have to run it like as the rules say.
Just for clarification, you mean "run it like the rules say for the purpose of discussion," right? Because I'll agree with that. I even wrote an essay on the subject once. Or maybe you meant "we need to run it like the rules say in Pathfinder Society," which is fair enough. But when you phrase it the way you have, it sounds like you're saying "we need to run it like the rules say in our home games," which I strongly disagree with.
I'll agree that it's questionable whether or not reach of 0 gives a tiny creature 5 foot reach going purely by the rules as written. At the same time, I think it makes sense, and I would encourage other people to run it that way absent a firm "no" in the rules. And even then I'd say "This houserule makes a lot of sense, and you might find it more fun."
Yes I'm talking about PFS, where RAW needs to be followed. For a homegame there are no rules that need to be followed.
But how is it questionable if tiny with reach gets 5ft? What rule support do you have that would indicate they do, or even to give credence that 5ft reach is even up for consideration?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
PFS, where RAW needs to be followed.
But how is it questionable if tiny with reach gets 5ft?
I agree with those two statements, I just differ on the meaning of those two statements.
PFS requires RAW. This has been explained that you don't ban material you don't like, you don't say everyone gets Weapon Finesse for free, and other similar violations of the rules.
You do interpret the rules as you believe they read. Some creatures are "(Long)" and use reach of a size smaller. All other creatures have normal reach equal to their size. A tiny creature is size 2.5 ft. Reach with a reach weapon is 2.5*2 = 5 ft for tiny.
So I just don't comprehend how anyone can come to any conclusion other than tiny creatures with reach weapons have 5 ft reach and attack adjacent squares but can't attack in their square with that weapon. I'm fine with you saying your view is RAW, I simply don't understand how you read the rules I do and come to that conclusion. Especially since JJ explained the meaning of "double" as something other than a strict *2 operation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where are you getting that creatures have normal reach equal to their size? That isn't any rule. You're making stuff up and then saying it's rules.
JJ isn't rules. He's great for coming up with house rules. But anything JJ says doesn't matter if it's in direct contradiction to the actual rules.
We have clear rules in the book. Tiny's reach is 0ft. Not 2.5ft. It explicitly states this in the book. Then is says reach doubles natural reach. We've been explicitly stated that the natural reach of a tiny creature is 0ft. So double that is 0ft.
If we're going to give tiny creatures 5ft with a reach weapon cause we think it's a good idea then I'll allow medium creatures 50ft reach cause I think it's a good idea. Double doesn't actually mean strict *2, and even though the book says reach is 5ft, I'm not actually limited to using what the book says for reach if I feel a different value makes more sense.
You've yet to provide any written and/or official rule that could be interpreted to mean your view of things.
I'll risk my PFS GM card on that one...
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If we're going to give tiny creatures 5ft with a reach weapon cause we think it's a good idea then I'll allow medium creatures 50ft reach cause I think it's a good idea.
Ok that seems to tell me that we can't come to a reasonable agreement here. If you don't see how the two (5 ft and 50 ft) are not similar, then we can't explain it.
Can we drop this? Otherwise 1000 posts later you and I will be posting "no" to each other.
If we're going to give tiny creatures 5ft with a reach weapon cause we think it's a good idea then I'll allow medium creatures 50ft reach cause I think it's a good idea.Ok that seems to tell me that we can't come to a reasonable agreement here. If you don't see how the two (5 ft and 50 ft) are not similar, then we can't explain it.
Can we drop this? Otherwise 1000 posts later you and I will be posting "no" to each other.
Hahaha, I can't force you to respond. As soon as you don't reply to one of my post about this issue it's over, but since you keep responding I'll respond back to answer questions/ask questions/provide clarification.
And I'm just saying that if you're GM fiat saying that tiny gets 5ft reach because it makes sense to you, why do you have a problem with a GM from giving 50ft because it makes sense to them?
You say the first is something the GM should and could do in PFS, but then go and say that the other is not. What is the cutoff for a GM to change the reach rules for PFS? is it just adding 5ft? So a medium can have a 10ft reach base? Or is it max of double their height? If I have a tall half-orc that I say is 7.5-8ft (the upper end of medium) should I rule that they really have 7.5 reach and not 5ft reach since "All non-long creatures have normal reach equal to their size"? And thus with a reach weapon they threaten out 15ft since that's the "double" of his reach? This seems like it's something you'd easily allow and embrace since it's following the logic you're using to give a tiny 0ft reach creature 5ft reach with a reach weapon to give my medium 5ft reach person 15ft reach with a reach weapon. Yet I have the feeling that giving 15ft reach is something you wouldn't actually allow or approve of, even though it's using the same argument.
And I'm just saying that if you're GM fiat saying that tiny gets 5ft reach because it makes sense to you, why do you have a problem with a GM from giving 50ft because it makes sense to them?Has nothing to do with GM fiat.
2 * 2.5 = 5 is math
2 * 5 = 50 is !math
Where are you getting 2.5?
Tiny reach is 0ft.2 * 0 = 0 is math
So if you "randomly" feel that a tiny should have a reach of 2.5ft, even though the rule is that they have 0ft, what's stopping you from "randomly" feeling that your friends elf should have 50ft reach?
But to use more "reasonable" number. Someone "randomly" feels that a 7.5ft tall half-orc should have 7.5 reach instead of the listed 5ft, since they are so tall. 2 * 7.5 = 15 is math. So my tall half-orc gets 15ft reach when using a reach weapon.
*I'm saying 50ft with reach, so natural reach of 25ft. Thought it would have been obvious what was going on, but I guess not.
And I'm just saying that if you're GM fiat saying that tiny gets 5ft reach because it makes sense to you, why do you have a problem with a GM from giving 50ft because it makes sense to them?Has nothing to do with GM fiat.
2 * 2.5 = 5 is math
2 * 5 = 50 is !mathWhere are you getting 2.5?
Tiny reach is 0ft.
2 * 0 = 0 is mathSo if you "randomly" feel that a tiny should have a reach of 2.5ft, even though the rule is that they have 0ft, what's stopping you from "randomly" feeling that your friends elf should have 50ft reach?
But to use more "reasonable" number. Someone "randomly" feels that a 7.5ft tall half-orc should have 7.5 reach instead of the listed 5ft, since they are so tall. 2 * 7.5 = 15 is math. So my tall half-orc gets 15ft reach when using a reach weapon.*I'm saying 50ft with reach, so natural reach of 25ft. Thought it would have been obvious what was going on, but I guess not.
I don't think 'random' means what you think it means.
2.5' reach on tiny creatures is, at it's worst, a reasonable inference from the rules.
2 * 2.5 = 5 is mathWhere are you getting 2.5?
Tiny reach is 0ft.
Show me Paizo stats on a Medium creature with 50' reach and we'll talk.
3 These values are typical for creatures of the indicated size. Some exceptions exist.
Okay, so that one creature and any other tiny creature that specifically says it's different from the standard get to be exceptions. That still isn't providing anything showing that a BROWNIE or a reduced small character that used a reach weapon would have 5ft reach.
And I'm just saying that if you're GM fiat saying that tiny gets 5ft reach because it makes sense to you, why do you have a problem with a GM from giving 50ft because it makes sense to them?Because one uses RAW and the other is bogus and violates the PFS "use RAW" rule.
WHERE IS THIS RAW YOU SPEAK OF. You've not provided a single valid RAW source to show that a creature listed a 0ft reach actually has 2.5ft reach and that those listed with 0ft reach would double to 5ft. Not a single valid source. I'm all down with your "there is more than one RAW" view, IF there actually is possible support for more than one RAW. That's why I'm asking for any valid RAW source to support you. You show anything that could reasonably be read to state RAW 0ft means 2.5ft then I'll gladly accept your view as valid.
And I'm just saying that if you're GM fiat saying that tiny gets 5ft reach because it makes sense to you, why do you have a problem with a GM from giving 50ft because it makes sense to them?Has nothing to do with GM fiat.
2 * 2.5 = 5 is math
2 * 5 = 50 is !mathWhere are you getting 2.5?
Tiny reach is 0ft.
2 * 0 = 0 is mathSo if you "randomly" feel that a tiny should have a reach of 2.5ft, even though the rule is that they have 0ft, what's stopping you from "randomly" feeling that your friends elf should have 50ft reach?
But to use more "reasonable" number. Someone "randomly" feels that a 7.5ft tall half-orc should have 7.5 reach instead of the listed 5ft, since they are so tall. 2 * 7.5 = 15 is math. So my tall half-orc gets 15ft reach when using a reach weapon.*I'm saying 50ft with reach, so natural reach of 25ft. Thought it would have been obvious what was going on, but I guess not.
I don't think 'random' means what you think it means.
2.5' reach on tiny creatures is, at it's worst, a reasonable inference from the rules.
Do you not see the "" around the random? Did I actually have to spell out that the "random" means that the GM has come up with something they think is a valid reason to allow it or a reasonable inference from the rules? Did you seriously think that my "random" meant truly random with no basis? Or were you able to reasonably assume that "random" meant that it could have any possible explanation, when taken as a whole or seen without explanation could look fairly random.
Do you not see the "" around the random? Did I actually have to spell out that the "random" means that the GM has come up with something they think is a valid reason to allow it or a reasonable inference from the rules? Did you seriously think that my "random" meant truly random with no basis? Or were you able to reasonably assume that "random" meant that it could have any possible explanation, when taken as a whole or seen without explanation could look fairly random.
Your mention of 50', even your 7.5' example belies that claim. They have no basis in the rules, so it truly appeared that you meant "random with no basis".
the Combat size section says tiny has 0ft reach. If there's somewhere I'm missing besides that table then please point me in the correct location to look.
JJ isn't rules
You so far haven't shown one with a reach weapon and 5ft reach.
And I'd expect at least 3 to count as reasonable evidence.
You've shown twigjack that has 5ft with a non-reach weapon and CBDunkerson showed one creature that was an exception to having 0ft reach.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
All of these have 2.5 reach:
Rhamphorhynchus
Albino Cave Spider
Sagari
Skunk
Faerie Dragon
These have reach weapons, weapons that they are granted reach (like spear) or natural weapons that have longer than normal reach:
Pseudodragon
Pickled Punk
Witchcrow
Shadow Drake
Wyrmling Gray Dragon
Wyrmling White Dragon
Twigjack
Wyrmling Brass Dragon
Wyrmling Black Dragon
Wyrmling Copper Dragon
Mordnaissant
Rhamphorhynchus does have 2.5 good for it.
I can't find the Albino Cave Spider
I'm not seeing the skunks reach listed, so defaults to 0ft.
Faerie Dragon is listed with "Reach 0 ft.".
Pseudodragon, neither it's tail nor tails in general have reach. So it's special. Not proving that tiny with a standard reach-like weapon get's 5ft.
Pickled Punk has the Opportune (Ex) ability to make AoO at 5ft. But I'm not seeing it listed with a reach weapon to make it's 0ft reach double to 5ft.
Witchcrow, the only one I could find was small.
Shadow Drake, same as Pseudodragon
Wyrmlings I'm assuming you're meaning their bite attacks? The ones that are treated as if they were small? yeah not's not showing that tiny with reach is 5ft.
Twigjack, already brought up that it's not using a reach weapon. Thus it's a special thing of the enemy.
Mordnaissant I can't find it.
So your examples have attacks that are explicitly said to be 5ft, not that any of them have actual reach effects going on. Similar to the eidolon's reach that adds 5ft. It't not gaining a reach effect, just an increase on a specific attack as a property of the creature.
EDIT:Proof would be if it had a special clause saying Treat the tail as a reach weapon. Or if creatures were wielding actual reach weapons and listed as having 5ft reach with them.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So you spent a lot of time explains away all the examples.
This thread seems so familiar. This whole thread seems like all the FAQ threads that result in a new FAQ that doesn't change the text in errata but does change the rules.
An example would be the ranged flanking threads. People said you could sneak attack with a ranged weapon if you held a melee weapon in the other hand and the target was flanked by an ally. The others said the Gang Up FAQ denied this. The rules denied this by saying the flanking rules had to be melee. The pro ranged flanking said there were two paragraphs and the second one didn't mention melee, so it worked. We didn't get an errata, we didn't even get a new FAQ. We simply got the Dev team posting in some ranged flanking threads saying no.
Is that actually what you want? To keep arguing until they officially tell you no?
If do, I'll creat a short and sweet FAQ post and we can try to get 50+ clicks.
This FAQ has nothing to do with tiny reach. It was about stacking reach with reach increasing effects.
There's nothing official about tiny reach. You haven't provided anything official that supports that giving a tiny halfing a longspear would give him 5ft reach.
And for the DEV to say, "no" they'd be saying "no a tiny with reach doesn't threaten." Which is saying no to your view and agreeing with mine that nothing official gives 5ft reach.
A FAQ changing the rule and saying that tiny can get 5ft reach would be cool. Would really help one of the builds I'd like to do.
I'm just saying, the DEVs answering "No" would mean that reach is still 0ft. Since the question would be, "Does a tiny character with a reach weapon have 5ft reach?"
I have no idea what they actually currently think. If I did then either you or I probably would have changed our position of how it works.
This will probably get a lot more hits if you stuck it in it's own thread.