|
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.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?
You mean the rule I quoted directly from the PRD?
|
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.
You keep saying "magically elongate" but that's not what they do. A ten foot reach weapon can reach the second diagnol. If you were to draw 5 foot square on the ground and take a ten foot pole you would see that you can reach into the second diagnol, just not all the way across it (though with a half step and thrust you probably could). The second diagnol being 15 feet was originally (in 3.5) just intended as a simple way of counting movement. Each diagnol movement is actually 7.5 feet.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 3.5 method is the simplest and most logical solution. As has been stated, it solves all the mechanical issues, is already widely accepted by the vast majority of roleplayers, and doesn't require a vast overhaul of the existing rules.
|
|
You keep saying "magically elongate" but that's not what they do. A ten foot reach weapon can reach the second diagnol. If you were to draw 5 foot square on the ground and take a ten foot pole you would see that you can reach into the second diagnol, just not all the way across it (though with a half step and thrust you probably could). The second diagnol being 15 feet was originally (in 3.5) just intended as a simple way of counting movement. Each diagnol movement is actually 7.5 feet.
Yeah, "magically elongate" is a bit of a hyperbole, but 3.5 did provide an explicit exception to the diagonal distance rule (remember, it's not just used for moving). There is nothing in the PFRPG rules that specifically state that reach weapons for medium and small creatures are an exception to the diagonal distance rule.
So, while what you say is true, there is nothing within the rules to allow for it.
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.
So, your mechanical solution is to squeeze into a halfsquare. How is that really any different than saying if the weapon covers (over) half of the square it counts?
You are saying you cannot bend the laws of physics but, isnt that what this game does constantly? Do you houserule that people cannot swim in plate armor? Do you houserule that a 200' fall is fatal 99% of the time regardless of hitdice?
This game regularly ignores physics. Physics are not a consistent part of the game. This game is about mechanics, not physics. Mechanically, the 3.5 exception is the simplest and thus best solution to the reach weapon problem (when using a square grid).
|
You mean the rule I quoted directly from the PRD?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.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?
As I said - it works with creatures constrained to standing on a square grid (although it needs further exposition to work with larger creatures). But it doesn't generalize very well to creatures who can be positioned arbitrarily, rather than snapped to grid positions, and whose shape isn't defined strictly in terms of a square of grid cells. A gridless system really shouldn't have to define 'flanking' in terms of borders of a mesh of grid cells.
You keep saying "magically elongate" but that's not what they do. A ten foot reach weapon can reach the second diagnol. If you were to draw 5 foot square on the ground and take a ten foot pole you would see that you can reach into the second diagnol, just not all the way across it (though with a half step and thrust you probably could). The second diagnol being 15 feet was originally (in 3.5) just intended as a simple way of counting movement. Each diagnol movement is actually 7.5 feet.
Actually its sqrt((5x5)+(5x5)) = sqrt(50) ~ sqrt(49)= 7 (closer ro 7.1)
Now to reach from center of your sqare to center of 2 sqares higher you need 10ft (10ft reach) To reach center of sqare diagonally 2 sqares away you need 14.2ft, wich is closer to 15ft than 10ft (and that to reach center, not farthest corner). So if i allow atacking 15ft with 10ft reach then i should allow attacking to 10ft with 5ft reach weapon, wich is not something i want in my game.So, your mechanical solution is to squeeze into a halfsquare. How is that really any different than saying if the weapon covers (over) half of the square it counts?
You are saying you cannot bend the laws of physics but, isnt that what this game does constantly? Do you houserule that people cannot swim in plate armor? Do you houserule that a 200' fall is fatal 99% of the time regardless of hitdice?
This game regularly ignores physics. Physics are not a consistent part of the game. This game is about mechanics, not physics. Mechanically, the 3.5 exception is the simplest and thus best solution to the reach weapon problem (when using a square grid).
Because person is not 5ft cube of flesh and they can move around their sqare. Sqeezing limits their movement - this gives penalty to AC. If they have more space to move it may negate penalty. As at least this is my logic.
To reach 15ft away weapon must be telescopic or somehow stretch to get additional 5ft.And you can swim in plate mail for short time while padding still containst air (i like old rule about double ACP for swim, even tho do not use it) but you seems to not getting my point - i will not break the rule to make another one that dont follow laws of physics. If rule is unrealistic? Well too bad. If i houserule something unrealistic, then its my fault.
DarkPhoenixx, perhaps you have lost sight of the purpose of this thread and the discussion in it.
The thread is to discuss whether or not what is printed on a card in a Paizo produced deck of cards is the reintroduction of the 3.5 exception, or an error.
If it is a reintroduction then Paizo needs to put it in the book. If it is in error they need to fix the card.
Then the discussion varied from that into the territory of how do you deal with the reach weapon on the diagonal question. ALL of those answers are houserules, from the 3.5 exception to SKR's houserule to your 'squeezing without an AC penalty' solution.
RAW: Creatures can approach along the diagonal without suffering an AoO.
RAW: If you are in a 5' wide corridor that is 45degrees along the diagonal there is no way for you to make an attack unless you squeeze into a half square with all the penalties for squeezing.
Houserule: 3.5 exception (may no longer be a houserule if the card is considered RAW).
Houserule: SKR's "10' band".
Houserule: You can squeeze into a half square without a penalty.
Impractical solution: Change to Hex grid
Impractical solution: re-orient the grid
Impractical solution: go to a gridless map
We cannot pretend there is no problem here. Even a Paizo staff member came along and pointed out that there is an issue here. Perhaps this discussion will sway Paizo to institute some official method to deal with this persistent issue.
Regarding physics, you brought that into the discussion, not I. Your rationale for the 3.5exception being a bad option (note: option, not rule) is that it rubbed your physics concepts the wrong way.
Well, this is not a discussion about physics. It is a discussion about rules and about which rule would be the least painful option for dealing with this obvious flaw in the rules. Physics really doesn't have any place in that discussion.
|
You keep saying "magically elongate" but that's not what they do. A ten foot reach weapon can reach the second diagnol. If you were to draw 5 foot square on the ground and take a ten foot pole you would see that you can reach into the second diagnol, just not all the way across it (though with a half step and thrust you probably could). The second diagnol being 15 feet was originally (in 3.5) just intended as a simple way of counting movement. Each diagnol movement is actually 7.5 feet.Actually its sqrt((5x5)+(5x5)) = sqrt(50) ~ sqrt(49)= 7 (closer ro 7.1)
Now to reach from center of your sqare to center of 2 sqares higher you need 10ft (10ft reach) To reach center of sqare diagonally 2 sqares away you need 14.2ft, wich is closer to 15ft than 10ft (and that to reach center, not farthest corner). So if i allow atacking 15ft with 10ft reach then i should allow attacking to 10ft with 5ft reach weapon, wich is not something i want in my game.So, your mechanical solution is to squeeze into a halfsquare. How is that really any different than saying if the weapon covers (over) half of the square it counts?
You are saying you cannot bend the laws of physics but, isnt that what this game does constantly? Do you houserule that people cannot swim in plate armor? Do you houserule that a 200' fall is fatal 99% of the time regardless of hitdice?
This game regularly ignores physics. Physics are not a consistent part of the game. This game is about mechanics, not physics. Mechanically, the 3.5 exception is the simplest and thus best solution to the reach weapon problem (when using a square grid).
Because person is not 5ft cube of flesh and they can move around their sqare. Sqeezing limits their movement - this gives penalty to AC. If they have more space to move it may negate penalty. As at least this is my logic.
To reach 15ft away weapon must be telescopic or somehow stretch to get additional 5ft.
And you can swim in plate mail for short time while padding...
You move around your own 5-foot space constantly. You shouldn't measure your reach from the centre of your square but from the edge or corner closest to the target square, and if you reach into that square (by any amount) then you should be able to attack a target in that square. That creature is moving about in that square.
You are considered to be occupying the whole of your square even if conceptually you are simply moving about within it. If you doubt this, it's certain that when you are mounted on a horse you are considered to occupy all four squares!
|
|
@Malachi: except that's not how the diagonal measurement rule works. If you only have 5 feet of measurement, but you require 10 feet of measurement to count the second diagonal, you can't count the second diagonal. This is how it works for movement. It is specefically called out in the rules for who is affected by an area effect spell.There is nothing in the rules that currently grant an exception to this for small/medium creatures with a reach weapon.
The 3.5 rules did have an exception. The card says yes and references to a rule that doesn't exist. Either the card is wrong or the PDT needs to issue an errata. (My preference is for the errata).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I posted a Red Dwarf inspired comment mentioning that 'attacking with a reach weapon in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor is an excellent plan, with only two slight flaws...', SKR favourited it. This (apart from boosting my ego) indicated to me that he would prefer the 3.5 exception but for some reason wasn't allowed to use it, and his '10-foot band' idea was just to make the best of a bad job.
Apart from the lack of the solution to the problem of attacking in a 5-foot diagonal corridor, it has problems even for the situation it does address.
The game mechanics for attacks of opportunity rely on threatened squares. Every single AoO applies only if the attacker threatens the square where the provocation takes place. When the AoO is executed, that square is where the provoker is when he is hit, where he stops his movement if the AoO stops him, where he falls prone if the AoO trips him. SKR's 'best of a bad job' solution doesn't fit with this, because the guy approaching the reach weapon wielder on a diagonal is never in a threatened square. Where is this imaginary 10-foot band? According to PF rules, everything is located in a square. So which square? If approaching diagonally and tripped by the AoO which triggers when this imaginary line is crossed, in which square do I fall prone?
Any answer to that is at least as arbitrary and unrealistic as threatening the second diagonal!
Some people are rubbed the wrong way by threatening the second diagonal, but these same people should be just as offended by having to decide in which square the tripped creature falls prone. Since the offence is equal in both cases, the matter must be decided on which rule solves the gameplay problems, and hands down! the 3.5 exception has zero gameplay problems and the 'SKR best of a bad job' solution fails on many levels, like which square a tripped character fall, diagonal corridors, and changing the rules for threatened squares.
I wonder if there is some legal reason preventing PF from officially adopting the 3.5 exception...?
|
|
@Malachi: except that's not how the diagonal measurement rule works. If you only have 5 feet of measurement, but you require 10 feet of measurement to count the second diagonal, you can't count the second diagonal. This is how it works for movement. It is specefically called out in the rules for who is affected by an area effect spell.There is nothing in the rules that currently grant an exception to this for small/medium creatures with a reach weapon.
The 3.5 rules did have an exception. The card says yes and references to a rule that doesn't exist. Either the card is wrong or the PDT needs to issue an errata. (My preference is for the errata).
I'm not talking about movement, I'm talking about attacking from one square into another square.
When moving orthogonally, no matter which precise point in your square you measure from, it is exactly 5-feet to the corresponding point in the square you're moving to. Therefore, even when moving an entire 5-foot square to the next square, every single point of that square has moved exactly 5-feet.
But occupying a space works differently. In the rules, you are considered to be occupying the entire square, even though conceptually you are moving around within it. But you are not leaving your square when you attack with a reach weapon, your weapon just has to reach into part of the target square, because your target creature is considered to occupy every part of that square.
According to the calculations given above, a 5-foot square measures 7.1-feet on the diagonal. Measured from the corner of your own square, your 10-foot reach weapon reaches 2.9-feet into that square, easily enough to run most people right through!
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-square (i would fiat that you do not have penalties as long as opposite half-square is unoccupied).
No house-ruling or fiat is required. You're only squeezing when you go "into or through an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up." You're never doing this when moving down a diagonal, 7-foot-wide corridor.
Don't forget that the squares are only arbitrarily placed.
|
|
Don't forget that the squares are only arbitrarily placed.
...and therefore the creatures around your reach weapon wielder are arbitrarily placed in a square when they intend to be in a circle. The reach weapon should be able to attack any single creature in that 'circle', and any single creature in that 'circle' should be able to attack the central creature if they have a reach weapon.
It's the fault of neither the player, DM or creatures in the game that the square grid doesn't allow circles. Conceptually, some creatures could surround a PC by standing in a circle, precisely so that every creaure can attack the guy in the middle. If at first glance the square grid doesn't permit this, then the correct solution is to find a way to allow the grid to simulate this reality, not to arbitrarily say that only half can attack and half cannot, due to the orientation of a grid which doesn't really exist!
|
Stupid personal anecdote time:
I have hundreds of PFS tables run and many more hundreds played. Many dozens of those are with venture captains and Paizo staff. Only once have I run into a situation where someone didn't think you could reach into the 2nd diagonal with a reach weapon and that was a player at a table I ran who was happy to hear I used the 3.5 exception.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
De jure is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact". The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations.
So the 'de jure' rule is that reach weapons don't reach the diagonals, but the 'de facto' is the 3.5 exception.
In a legal context, de jure is also translated as "concerning law". A practice may exist de facto, where, for example, the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law. A process known as "desuetude" may allow (de facto) practices to replace (de jure) laws that have fallen out of favor, locally.
...and it's about time that the de facto 3.5 exception replaced the de jure lack of it.
|
|
I'm not talking about movement, I'm talking about attacking from one square into another square.
When moving orthogonally, no matter which precise point in your square you measure from, it is exactly 5-feet to the corresponding point in the square you're moving to. Therefore, even when moving an entire 5-foot square to the next square, every single point of that square has moved exactly 5-feet.
But occupying a space works differently. In the rules, you are considered to be occupying the entire square, even though conceptually you are moving around within it. But you are not leaving your square when you attack with a reach weapon, your weapon just has to reach into part of the target square, because your target creature is considered to occupy every part of that square.
According to the calculations given above, a 5-foot square measures 7.1-feet on the diagonal. Measured from the corner of your own square, your 10-foot reach weapon reaches 2.9-feet into that square, easily enough to run most people right through!
Whether or not you're actually talking about movement doesn't matter. Reach weapons, ranged weapons, spell area of effects, and movement all use the same rule for counting diagonals.
And while I agree with you that one might be technically still reaching 2.9 feet into the second square, that is irrelevant because there is a general rule to round down any calculation (hence why you need 15' to reach the second diagonal, not 10')—if you don't have enough to get the entire square, you don't get any of the square. Of course it's not perfectly realistic, it's' a compromise for the benefit of the game. But it's a compromise that has a glaring hole when applied to small/medium creatures with reach weapons.
3.5 understood this and granted a specific exception. For whatever reason, this wasn't included in the SRD, so PF didn't include the exception. There was much debate, and there was a compromise provided by a developer based upon what was given (it was hotly protested, but it wasn't an unreasonable compromise). Now Paizo has issued a product that summarizes that there is an exception for small/medium creatures, but the rule it summarizes doesn't actually exist.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
De jure is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact". The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations.So the 'de jure' rule is that reach weapons don't reach the diagonals, but the 'de facto' is the 3.5 exception.
In a legal context, de jure is also translated as "concerning law". A practice may exist de facto, where, for example, the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law. A process known as "desuetude" may allow (de facto) practices to replace (de jure) laws that have fallen out of favor, locally....and it's about time that the de facto 3.5 exception replaced the de jure lack of it.
I agree with you completely.
|
|
@HangarFlying: yeah, it turns out we are in agreement. : /
I wonder if there is some legal reason that prevents Paizo from employing the 3.5 exception? SKR obviously favoured it, but instead of importing that rule he came up with his 'best of a bad job' solution. Admirable, but clearly far worse than the total solution offered by the 3.5 exception.
It's as if Paizo weren't allowed to use it. Can anyone shed any light on this?