|
| 17 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at the rule reference card (thank goodness one of the two sample cards is the one I'm asking about), it says that you threaten the 15' diagonals with a longspear. Now I know that if you're approached on a diagonal with a reach weapon you still get an attack of opportunity, but what if they don't approach you. According to this "rule reference card" you now flat-out threaten the 15' diagonals for attacks of opportunity. So if someone is doing anything there that would provoke then they do actually provoke--where it has been understood until now that only approaching would provoke.
So is this card official?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been watching the discussion on the item and haven't seen any reply to the multiple questions about this.
If you are asking if they are official for PFS play, they aren't listed in Additional Resources. It is a new product and I don't think a consensus has been reached yet. Personally, I think it simplifies a lot of things if you allow a reach weapon to threaten those diagonal squares. Without it, there were GMs that would allow their NPCs to come in via the diagonal to get inside your reach without an AoO.
This is how we have always done it. To have the corners being safe spots send like being a bit clonky. I know there was some waiting but since i liked how we did it i ditent pay attention.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, an actual rule (instead of some SKR posts) that settle the matter would be nice to have.
"Squircles" are not pretty, but I think it's impossible to make any pretty rule. After all, you're trying to map a circle onto a square grid.
This rule does avoid the absurdities of an invisible band of threatened space, or of enemies stepping through your threatened band without ever triggering.
I'll take ugly over abusive.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My understanding is that the removal of the line in 3.5 that made all threatening a square shape defaults to the norm of circle shaped threatening in Pathfinder. This was confirmed by SKR before he left. It also made approaching strange where you could approach on a route that never leaves a threatened square. But this way of appraching threatened because you left the 15ft away square to land in the 5 ft away (adjacent) square. So you provoked when leaving the "virtual" 10 ft square that doesn't exist.
|
|
My understanding is that the removal of the line in 3.5 that made all threatening a square shape defaults to the norm of circle shaped threatening in Pathfinder. This was confirmed by SKR before he left. It also made approaching strange where you could approach on a route that never leaves a threatened square. But this way of appraching threatened because you left the 15ft away square to land in the 5 ft away (adjacent) square. So you provoked when leaving the "virtual" 10 ft square that doesn't exist.
Yes, but that ruling was something that few normal people would've guessed at by just reading the book. It makes a certain amount of sense when you read it, but it's not something you'd come up with on your own, and also not something you can clearly see in the book.
So there was just that explanation by SKR, buried deep deep deep in the forum. That's not very practical for PFS purposes; imagine trying to explain it in mid-combat to a skeptical GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a link to my 3.5 exception poll, in the first post is a link to the SKR ruling.
Approximately 89% of pollsters report that they continue to houserule the 3.5 exception back into the game.
I always ran it as squares for simpler reasons. If I wanted to play hex-pathfinder then it'd be a different matter, but with squares you can only do so much.
That said, RAI per SKR disagrees. RAW... is murky.
|
Would someone who never played 3.5 know that the reach weapon "could" threaten the second diagonal? The specific language that granted that as an exception to the normal rules for diagonals was omitted from the open content which Pathfinder was based on.
Without that language, we have nothing that grants an exception to the diagonal rules. Is there anything in the rules, other than this card, that allows for the exception?
Personally, I do it the 3.5 way and it certainly makes things a little easier to adjudicate.
Nefreet, how do you adjudicate creatures approaching along the corners? Do you use SKR's houserule?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that is not in the rules in any way. The AoO rules cover leaving squares, not crossing a line.
It makes just as much sense to houserule that in as it does to use the 3.5 exception only in the case of the 3.5 exception you remove another problem, diagonal corridors.
Put a creature in a 5' wide diagonal corridor and give him a longspear. He cannot attack. And, before someone says this doesn't happen, it can and does. Of course, some people will state that you should rotate the grid but that can cause issues too.
The 3.5 exception was a simple solution to all of this even if it rubbed certain people wrong with the "squircle".
|
I'm wondering how your poll results would change if you instead had 3 options:
1) "I use the 3.5 exception."
2) "I use the Pathfinder rules."
3) "I use the Pathfinder rules, but I also allow AoOs whenever a creature crosses between the 15' and 5' diagonals."
When I initially saw the first poll option, and then the 2nd, I continued right on down, believing there had to be a 3rd, because I don't see myself as falling exactly in either of those two categories.
But I knew I definitely wasn't in the first camp. #2 was just the best that fit.
I never realised this was an issue until reading the boards. I always transported the '(including diagonals)' from the medium threaten bit to the very vague 'threatens more squares' bit on reach.
In fairness, on reflection I could be reading it with 3.x prejudice...
Nefreet, perhaps you misread the poll? It did not ask if you used the Pathfinder rules.
It only asks if you use the 3.5exception. It is a simple yes/no answer.
There is really no need for a third option (except for the joke option already included).
As I said in the previous discussion
"I attack the goblin"
"You can't, he's 15 feet away"
"I five foot towards him and attack"
"You can't, you're now 5 feet away from him"
*punch GM*
And this is a perfect reason that the 3.5 exception rule makes as much (if not more) sense than the SKR houserule.
The 3.5 exception covers both situations where someone approaches you and situations where you approach someone else.
The SKR houserule only covers situations where someone approaches you which leaves the situation where you approach someone else along that magical diagonal line still unresolved.
|
|
Nefreet, perhaps you misread the poll? It did not ask if you used the Pathfinder rules.
It only asks if you use the 3.5 exception. It is a simple yes/no answer.
There is really no need for a third option
I read the poll, and I answered with the most correct answer I could. I do not use the 3.5 exception, and I never have.
But it's the fallacy of a false dilemma. There's more to the story that your poll leaves out.
There really is a 3rd answer. There are 3 ways to run reach.
I'm just wondering how many ppl use that 3rd option.
If we were truly interested in that answer, we'd need another poll.
It is not the fallacy of the false dilemma since there was no dilemma. A false dilemma would be something like "If you are not with us then you are against us." No such statement was made or dilemma presented. I simply asked if people use it or not and I didn't even present a situation of 'when do you use it' or 'how do you use it'.
You are reading more into the poll than is actually there. The poll is not asking how do people run reach. It is asking do they use the 3.5 exception.
I agree, if you are interested in the breakdown of how people run reach you should start a new poll. However, I am not interested in such a breakdown. I got the answer to the question I had back then (which was how many pollsters still use the 3.5 exception).
As I said in the previous discussion
"I attack the goblin"
"You can't, he's 15 feet away"
"I five foot towards him and attack"
"You can't, you're now 5 feet away from him"
*punch GM*
"There is 2 goblins 15ft away from you, one in front, other one to the left of him."
"I attack the left one!""He dies"
"I use my second attack on the one in front"
"You cant, he is too far"
"But are not they both was 15ft away?"
"Yea, but magnetic field of Golarion stretches you weapon when you attack diagonally somehow."
*facepalm*
No rule is perfect. But square circles annoy me, so i play SKR way.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The second diagonal isn't actually fifteen away though. Traveling diagonally in five foot squares each diagnol is 7.5 feet. So a ten foot weapon would reach into the second diagnol if not all the way across is. The rule book just simplifies it to 5 and 15 rather than ask if people can 5ft step a 7.5 diagnol
The cards are Rules References so in my opinion are as golden as if they were in the book themselves. The Core Rulebook is unclear and in my opinion the card is Paizo's way to clearing up the rule until V7.0 comes out which may be never.
Maybe it's just the pedantic side of me, but I would say that PF is currently is V1.0.6 and is due for V1.0.7
DarkPhoenix, how do you handle the case where there is NO position where the reach weapon user can attack from because of the magical diagonals? SKR's way does not cover that.
Instead of a square circle you don't have a circle at all.
Fighting down a diagonal corridor.
Modules Overlord
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of situation would this be?DarkPhoenix, how do you handle the case where there is NO position where the reach weapon user can attack from because of the magical diagonals? SKR's way does not cover that.
Instead of a square circle you don't have a circle at all.
It's the pole arm in a narrow diagonal hallway.
Imagine a hallway just 5 feet wide, at a 45 degree angle to the grid. You have a pole arm. An attacker walks slowly toward you down the middle of the hall.
You can never attack any square adjacent to you - it's a reach weapon. So if he is one diagonal square away, he's too close.
But if he is two diagonal squares away, that's 15 feet, and he is too far.
Technically you could squeeze into a half square, then attack the center square 2 sqares away (since it's not 2 diagonals anymore) but the idea that the only way to attack someone is to cram yourself up against the wall in a clear hallway is fairly ridiculous.
|
|
I prefer being able to reach that second diagonal as a standard rule, but I only grumble a little bit when GMs rule that it doesn't work that way.
What I really have a problem with is GMs who rule you can't reach the second diagonal but then don't fine-tune the "square circle" for large or larger sized creatures. If you're going to drag real-world math into Pathfinder you need to apply it evenly - that hill giant can't attack into the second diagonal with his club if I can't attack into the second diagonal with my reach weapon.
The easiest fix is to allow reach weapons to hit anything 2 squares away, diagonal or not.
This eliminates the 'free passage' nonsense (rNai) and the diagonal corridor situation where a dude with a reach weapon can't attack (rNai).
Playing it the other way is a sham of a mockery of a sham!
The ideal solution is for someone to make a virtual tabletop system that allows for gridless games so that we can remove the issue altogether.
|
|
What I really have a problem with is GMs who rule you can't reach the second diagonal but then don't fine-tune the "square circle" for large or larger sized creatures. If you're going to drag real-world math into Pathfinder you need to apply it evenly - that hill giant can't attack into the second diagonal with his club if I can't attack into the second diagonal with my reach weapon.
If you had GMs that were allowing Large creatures with natural reach to hit the second diagonal, but not allowing medium creatures with a longspear to hit that second diagonal is wrong. The only difference between large creatures and the medium creature with the longspear is that the large creatures can also threaten the squares that are adjacent to them.
But really, it appears as though that is moot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ideal solution is for someone to make a virtual tabletop system that allows for gridless games so that we can remove the issue altogether.Except that excludes anyone who couldn't afford such a system and people who only have access to paper/dice/pencils.
If you have access to paper/dice/pencils then you sure as heck have access to a ruler and could use a gridless system in the exact same way.
If you have access to paper/dice/pencils then you sure as heck have access to a ruler and could use a gridless system in the exact same way.The ideal solution is for someone to make a virtual tabletop system that allows for gridless games so that we can remove the issue altogether.Except that excludes anyone who couldn't afford such a system and people who only have access to paper/dice/pencils.
And that's beside the fact that there are VTs that are completely free to use, including the biggest - Roll20.
|
|
Unfortunately a gridless system isn't really that useful for Pathfinder - far too many of the Pathfinder combat rules are defined in terms of the grid. Not just things like adjacency or the 5' step; I'm talking about the specific requirements for flanking, ranged and melee cover, and the like.
You're kidding right? "Trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked." You're telling me you can't figure out what opposite sides of an opponent is unless he's standing in a square?
And for cover
"To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC)." That also works just fine and can very easily be extrapolated for a gridless system.
Now I'm not saying you're wrong--pathfinder is very much assuming a grid-based play area--I'm just saying you picked poor examples to prove your point. But overall, most of it can very easily be interpreted for a gridless system.
|
I use a round base, now i cant be flanked! Ha HA!You're kidding right? "Trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked." You're telling me you can't figure out what opposite sides of an opponent is unless he's standing in a square?
Furthermore, the rule quoted above is significantly different in effect from the current Pathfinder rules. It comes fairly close when limited to dealing with medium/small creatures constrained to standing in the centre of 5' squares, but doesn't match quite so well in the general case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to run a gridless 3.X/PF game. While I thought it would work well (and it did, mechanically) I had failed to take into account the ability of my players.
They could not easily see distances without the grid. They had a hard time figuring out the tactics of who is threatening who etc. We played like that for 6 months before I gave it up.
I come from a gridless wargaming background (Warhammer Fantasy Battles) and I was used to eyeballing it. They were not used to it and this presented an additional hurdle to playing the game that was just not worth it.
So, there are a number of solutions:
1) Go gridless (if you have players able to make that adjustment).
2) Use a Hex map (requires adjusting the maps).
3) Re-orient any map or grid where a diagonal situation is likely to occur (requires adjusting the maps and cannot be done in PFS).
4) Use SKR's houserule (does not handle attacking, only handles AoOs).
5) Use the 3.5 exception (rubs certain people wrong but resolves all of the mechanical issues in a square grid situation).
6) Accept that there are magical directions where AoOs and attacks are impossible with reach weapons.
Of all these solutions only #5 handles all of the mechanical problems of attacks and AoOs along the diagonal when using a grid. However, unless the card becomes RAW it is a houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I wouldn't want to remove grids outside of a VT specifically designed to deal with it for you. Select a token, and either it draws in a light hex grid or concentric rings of various distances (reach, single move range, double move range, ranged weapon increments, etc) to allow easy visualization of the distances. Plus it would have to automatically deal with pathing of the tokens within the maps - taking corners or moving around obstacles while maintaining the minimum distance from walls / hostile tokens.
In the meantime I'd love to see #3 implemented by Paizo in their APs. Given the number of maps in their APs that are 45° off the grid, or contain large sections that are 45° off grid, it would be really nice to see them drawn with a more localized grid. (The glassworks in RotRL is probably the worst example of this I can think of; most of that map should have been gridded 45° off.) I'd be fine with having doorways and hallways having "squares" that aren't actually squares for transitioning from one grid rotation to another.
Of course, such maps would work really nicely for some games (VTs, pre-printed flip mats) while being completely unusable for games that are played with a large dry erase battlemat, or with a VT that can't have be played with snap-to-grid turned off for tokens. So I guess that probably wouldn't go over all that well.
This is one of the reasons I've been interested in trying out hex grids. They also eliminate the issue of diagonal flanking being strictly inferior (easy to escape) compared to flanking "along the lines."
DarkPhoenix, how do you handle the case where there is NO position where the reach weapon user can attack from because of the magical diagonals? SKR's way does not cover that.
Instead of a square circle you don't have a circle at all.
Still better than having square wheels and mundane weapons that magically elongate.
While it did not happened to me before, i would rule that you can squeeze in half-suare(i would fiat that you do not have penalties as long as opposite half-square is unoccupied). While allowing attacks in 15ft diagonals seems rather simple, i can work with bending the rules but i can not bend laws of physics and properties of materials (unless actual magic is involved). So it is more question of preference.