Happy Holidays from the Pathfinder Design Team!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

blahpers wrote:

The diagonal update is quite annoying for folks standing on the second diagonal and moving somewhere else outside 10', such as away or orthogonally. Sorry, folks, but I' gonna have to ignore this one, too, and continue to rule that it only provokes if the movement actually involves crossing the 10' barrier. It made perfect sense that way and I've yet to see it cause confusion in practice.

But have a good holiday nonetheless, and thanks for the FAQ attention!

You say you've yet to see the pre-FAQ rule cause any confusion, so perhaps you can help the rest of us out?

If you are using a reach weapon and you and your foe are in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor, how do you attack your foe? Where do you stand so that your reach weapon can threaten the square he is in?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Here is an example corridor. Can anyone explain why someone with reach should not be able to attack someone in the back of the room?


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
The diagonal update is quite annoying for folks standing on the second diagonal and moving somewhere else outside 10', such as away or orthogonally. Sorry, folks, but I' gonna have to ignore this one, too, and continue to rule that it only provokes if the movement actually involves crossing the 10' barrier. It made perfect sense that way and I've yet to see it cause confusion in practice.

Yeah, I have to agree. I've never had a problem dealing with this and it keeps distance consistent with everything else in the game.

I don't really care which way it's played, but this is bad practice for Paizo, and it doesn't "fix" anything - only the unnecessary arguments you choose to have at your tables. If it was really that important or such a big problem, you could have house ruled it the way you're supposed to if you don't like how the square grid abstracts things. And if your GM didn't agree, then well, tough cookies just like everything else in the game.

All this does is exchange one house-rule argument for another.

Quote:
If you are using a reach weapon and you and your foe are in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor, how do you attack your foe? Where do you stand so that your reach weapon can threaten the square he is in?

Treat the diagonal squares as adjacent while in the hallway (whether using reach weapons or not). This helps with movement anyway. Concluding that you can't attack anyone because Paizo won't "fix" 10ft reach is beyond lazy. The hallway doesn't have to be diagonal just because there are diagonal lines on it.

If you want things to be easier or less confusing, then the solution is to just go ahead and make them that way on your own, with house rules. Not by officially changing what 10ft means for one specific thing in the game.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thundercade wrote:
Treat the diagonal squares as adjacent while in the hallway (whether using reach weapons or not)

Reach weapons can't attack adjacent squares, so treating the diagonal squares as adjacent means I cannot attack.

This is not a solution, it just highlights the problem.


I don't have an answer for that apart from "don't design dungeons whose combat-likely areas feature 5'-wide corridors at 45- or 135-degree angles." It doesn't take much to break the grid however you handle diagonals. I mean, try a radially-symmetric thirteen-way hub of 5'-wide corridors or even a 5'-wide corridor that curves erratically and the whole thing goes to hell. Even an octagon-shaped room is likely to cause ruffled feathers whichever way you rule. But the grid is fast and works most of the time, so we accept the grid and fudge when it makes sense to.

In other words, the diagonal exception fixes one thing by breaking another, so pick the method that is least likely to cause "wtf" moments at your table. For me, pikes magically lengthening along arbitrary compass headings is more offensive than using cross-the-threshold provocation and some restraint when designing dungeons.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
In other words, the diagonal exception fixes one thing by breaking another, so pick the method that is least likely to cause "wtf" moments at your table. For me, pikes magically lengthening along arbitrary compass headings is more offensive than using cross-the-threshold provocation and some restraint when designing dungeons.

For me, realizing the reach weapon actually can reach the near half of the second diagonal is less offensive, as I realize the pike isn't changing size at all. And I prefer dungeons that are not perfectly right angled everywhere.


thundercade, Paizo "broke" 10ft reach when they failed to include the exception that was already present in the rules. They "fixed" it when they included it again.

However, if you have a method to fix the diagonal corridor issue, please, lets us know.

Note: re-orienting the grid is not a fix. Assuming that the GM is even allowed to do that (not the case in PFS) it is a royal PITA that is even more of a headache than simply saying if a reach weapon can hit half of the square then it counts.

Player, "Hey, GM, I use a reach weapon and that corridor is diagonal."
GM, "Ok, give me 5 minutes to redraw everything."


I know this a bit off topic but...Just a quick mythic question for mr. Jason Bulmahn about the upgradable ability for legendary items

Quote:
Upgradable: This ability grants the bonded creature the ability to more easily increase the non-mythic magical power of the legendary item. If the base magic item has a version with a higher bonus or greater version (such as a +1longsword, a +2 light steel shield, a cloak of protection +3, an amulet of might fists +4, or a minor ring of inner fortitude), the bonded creature can improve it by performing a special ritual. She must spend a number of gold pieces equal to half the difference between the cost of the legendary item's current, non-mythic base item and the greater version she wishes to upgrade the item into. For example, she would pay 3,000 gp to upgrade a +1 longsword into a +2 longsword. This ritual takes 8 hours. When it's completed, the bonded creature transmutes the item's base version into the desired version. When upgraded in this fashion, the legendary item retains all legendary item abilities it had before the transmutation.

Does this ability allow you to take weapon special abilities such as "speed" or "flaming"? I ask because this caused a... heated discussion last game. I saw a lot of people discuss this on the forums as well.

I would consider it my christmas present if you could give us a definitive answer ;P

thx and happy holidays!


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
thundercade wrote:
Treat the diagonal squares as adjacent while in the hallway (whether using reach weapons or not)

Reach weapons can't attack adjacent squares, so treating the diagonal squares as adjacent means I cannot attack.

This is not a solution, it just highlights the problem.

No, what I meant was, treat diagonal squares as adjacent, so that it's as if they are side-by-side squares. So, the 2nd diagonal is now simply two straight squares away and an attack-able square the way it normally is with a reach weapon.

If it's a 5' hallway, this won't create any other consistency issues since it's just a straight hallway. Whomever is in that corridor can just pretend the corner to corner squares are side-by-side.

Gauss wrote:


thundercade, Paizo "broke" 10ft reach when they failed to include the exception that was already present in the rules. They "fixed" it when they included it again.

However, if you have a method to fix the diagonal corridor issue, please, lets us know.

Note: re-orienting the grid is not a fix. Assuming that the GM is even allowed to do that (not the case in PFS) it is a royal PITA that is even more of a headache than simply saying if a reach weapon can hit half of the square then it counts.

Player, "Hey, GM, I use a reach weapon and that corridor is diagonal."
GM, "Ok, give me 5 minutes to redraw everything."

I get what you guys mean by "broke" in the first place, I guess I just disagree. There are several differences between 3.5 and PF and I viewed this a good (if unintended, was it?) change, IMHO.

My system to deal with diagonal corridors is described above. I've just never had it be a big deal at all. I'm not redrawing everything. Not even close. Many times I don't redraw anything. I simply make the adjustment when it's needed.

I'm just very surprised this creates such an issue that people are claiming has no solution, since it has been so easy to deal with in my games and groups. To me, this is what a GM can do. It's just like anything else in the game when there are issues with the grid or spacing or whatever, you adjust and keep going. So because of this surprise, I find rule errata for it an odd step.

As for PFS... I guess I don't know. I don't play PFS, so I don't know the GM woes it can bring. However, I can't say I support rules changes that are specifically done to smooth out rough spots in PFS (not claiming that's what this is, just sayin'). If it really does provide a much needed help - then I'm glad people are helped in that regard.

It bothers me on more of a principle level, that 10ft is 10ft in all but one category for the wrong reasons. What was a spot that a whip-wielding bard could attack long spear-wielding fighter is now not what it was. It's not just an improvement. One issue becomes someone else's issue. What was "Yeah, you should really get an AoO when he comes at you from the diagonal" is now "Yeah, he really shouldn't be able to attack you there...um...".

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
thundercade wrote:

No, what I meant was, treat diagonal squares as adjacent, so that it's as if they are side-by-side squares. So, the 2nd diagonal is now simply two straight squares away and an attack-able square the way it normally is with a reach weapon.

If it's a 5' hallway, this won't create any other consistency issues since it's just a straight hallway. Whomever is in that corridor can just pretend the corner to corner squares are side-by-side.

So mentally redrawing the grid then.


thundercade, So your solution is basically the same one of the ones others have proposed, redrawing the grid.

Only since you are mentally redrawing the grid it comes with the same disadvantages as going gridless. It would require people to have good spatial visualization.

Of all the solutions presented (including yours) making a simple exception is actually the simplest solution for the majority of people.

It works without having to redraw square into hex grids (Paizo's maps are all square grids, it would take time to convert them to hex grids).
It works without having to redraw the grid orientation (which takes time).
It works without having to mentally redraw the grid orientation or going gridless (which both take good spatial visualization).

While this exception bothers a certain number of people for a variety of reasons it is the simplest solution to a problem and it has the advantages of fitting in with the overall way things are done (square grids) and of being easily dealt with by the majority of people.

Sovereign Court

It's probably impossible to create any solution for this problem that's truly "pretty", because you're trying to display a circle on a low-resolution square-grid map. The expression "squaring the circle" exists for a reason.

I think that's something that everyone should keep in mind; no solution involving squares and circles will be truly pretty. There's no perfect solution, but we want one that's the best for the game. It has to be:


  • Easy to understand; intuitive; ideally, the first thing that a new player would think of.
  • Easy to use; doesn't cost a lot of time to use, doesn't cause a lot of mistakes that need correction.
  • Fair enough; it should not be possible to approach a spearman from a magical angle to avoid all attacks.

Although this rule is not a work of mathematical elegance, it does fit all of the criteria neatly.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And then I was ordered to be the point man for FAQs again, despite me not wanting to, and despite being told "you get into too many arguments on the boards.")

But I loved most of your arguments. Especially the "you aren't stupid, stop trying to interpret the rules as if you are stupid." one.

;-)
Sometime people really argue that way.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

thundercade, So your solution is basically the same one of the ones others have proposed, redrawing the grid.

Only since you are mentally redrawing the grid it comes with the same disadvantages as going gridless. It would require people to have good spatial visualization.

Of all the solutions presented (including yours) making a simple exception is actually the simplest solution for the majority of people.

It works without having to redraw square into hex grids (Paizo's maps are all square grids, it would take time to convert them to hex grids).
It works without having to redraw the grid orientation (which takes time).
It works without having to mentally redraw the grid orientation or going gridless (which both take good spatial visualization).

While this exception bothers a certain number of people for a variety of reasons it is the simplest solution to a problem and it has the advantages of fitting in with the overall way things are done (square grids) and of being easily dealt with by the majority of people.

Hang on here, you're turning what I said into something it's not. I'm not redrawing anything. That makes it sound as if needing to adjust where there are 2 or 3 diagonal squares, or even a long 5' corridor, then you're required to redraw an entire map. Of course I don't want to do that and I've never had to.

I'm not trying to present a solution for people here to take instead of this change, I'm just trying to make it clear what I do since it seems to be such an issue for everyone. Every complaint I've ever read on the forums about this in the past has been no problem in our games. The posts I read make it seem like there is tear in the space-time fabric right there at the table whenever someone with a long spear is approached from the wrong angle - I just don't get it.

In our group, this change only makes reach weapons into something they're not supposed to be, and devalues 15ft range effects - with no benefit at all, since we never have any issues with the old way. So, I have to come out disagreeing with the decision to errata it (not the rule itself, I obviously don't have to play the new way).


This change has no bearing on non-diagonal 15' range. What it does have bearing on is the 2nd diagonal which is simultaneously both 10 and 15' away.

After all, you can 5' step to the 1st diagonal and then (next turn) 5' step to what was the 2nd diagonal? So you magically traveled 5 feet? No, you traveled 10' to the 2nd diagonal because 10' is IN the 2nd diagonal.

People are fully able to absorb that bit but absorbing that the 2nd diagonal covers both 10' and 15' distances is somehow weird. I find this fascinating.

If you measure the 10' reach weapon's coverage of the 2nd diagonal it is about half of the second diagonal. So clearly it covers a significant portion of that square.

Regarding your system for dealing with it, perhaps you can provide a visual example because from everything you are describing it sounds like you are "locally" (within a couple squares) changing the orientation of the grid.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

For the 15' range thing, I'm saying that under the old rule, a wizard can stand in that 2nd diagonal square relative to a spear-wielding fighter and cast burning hands or color spray, and not provoke an attack but hit the fighter in the area. Under the new rule, he now provokes. I'm not saying people can't deal with it, I'm saying it's a change. Same goes for a whip-wielding bard that wants to stay just out of range. The wizard, bard and a huge size enemy with a 15' reach can find other squares to achieve this, but now it's 4 less squares. So there are losers in this.

This is why I like the idea of only dealing with it as the 10ft reach needs it - i.e. giving the AoO when appropriate (approached diagonally, etc), and locally re-orienting the grid squares if even necessary. This way it doesn't permanently change things for other effects.

Yes, I am very locally re-orienting the grid. I guess I don't consider this redrawing since it involves such a small area. I sort of just point, say what's what, and that's it. This has been doable in my experience. Maybe if it happened more often, I would find it a pain, I don't know.

For the 10ft coverage of the 2nd diagonal, I agree it covers a decent portion of the square. But then the errata should be that 2 diagonal squares is 10ft for everything. Not just reach weapons, but for movement, cone effects, everything. I don't advocate this at all, but that would be a fair, system-wide change.

Lantern Lodge

Good call on the reach weapons.

Effort and a revisit on Crane Wing appreciated, but the feat remains disappointing at best in my opinion.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:


So please, even if you don't like a designer / developer or his stance on something, don't spread your negativity about how awful it is. Fine some solid, empirical proof and present it if you want to, but don't go attacking the people who spend their off-time working to try and make your gaming experience even greater.
I'll agree that you shouldn't go after a person, but I don't see it as "negativity" to attack someone's stance. That's how debating works. Often these debates are over grey areas, so there is no "solid, empirical proof" on either side. Disagreeing on a point of view isn't hostile unless one side makes it so. Mark, for example, has done a fine job of engaging the community and explaining thing clearly and rationally even on subjects where there is disagreements. This wasn't always the case with some other dev's...

You mean the dev that had more experience with the 3.x system than anyone else here? C'mon, we know who you're talking about.

The problem isn't that people disagree. The problem is the tone and manner in which they disagree. And sometimes those people need to be dealt with by the big stick method in order to get them to knock it off.


HangarFlying wrote:
graystone wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:


So please, even if you don't like a designer / developer or his stance on something, don't spread your negativity about how awful it is. Fine some solid, empirical proof and present it if you want to, but don't go attacking the people who spend their off-time working to try and make your gaming experience even greater.
I'll agree that you shouldn't go after a person, but I don't see it as "negativity" to attack someone's stance. That's how debating works. Often these debates are over grey areas, so there is no "solid, empirical proof" on either side. Disagreeing on a point of view isn't hostile unless one side makes it so. Mark, for example, has done a fine job of engaging the community and explaining thing clearly and rationally even on subjects where there is disagreements. This wasn't always the case with some other dev's...

You mean the dev that had more experience with the 3.x system than anyone else here? C'mon, we know who you're talking about.

The problem isn't that people disagree. The problem is the tone and manner in which they disagree. And sometimes those people need to be dealt with by the big stick method in order to get them to knock it off.

If that's the case, then people should expect the same kind of reply back right? If a dev gets snarky, the whole tone goes downhill. If no one takes the high ground, you just end up fighting in the gutter.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meh. If the people would check their tone before hitting the submit button, there wouldn't be an issue. Of all the threads that I read in which people whined about SKR's tone, they deserved everything they got.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:
Meh. If the people would check their tone before hitting the submit button, there wouldn't be an issue. Of all the threads that I read in which people whined about SKR's tone, they deserved everything they got.

When one person is representing a company with their action and the other is someone on the forums, there's kind of different levels of professionalism they should strive for.

It seems this diagonal issue is still causing some issues, but at least it has gotten slightly better. I stand by my issues with Crane Wing, but really at this point, Pummeling/Dragon style have left it in the dust, again showing the value of offense over defense in the game. I can't complain, I like offense more, but it's just sad the value of offensive vs. defensive options in this game.

Paizo Employee Designer

Alright guys, let's not make things personal. This is a thread for holiday cheer for all, not personal attacks. For the record, I removed three posts where community members were each discussing why the other was making the community a negative place.


I can't say I will be lining up for this Crane Wing either, but I greet the FAQ on reach with pleasure. Enjoy the holidays.

Liberty's Edge

HangarFlying wrote:
So, for clarification, this also affects large creatures with a natural reach of 10' (asking because the original exception only applied to small and medium creatures with reach weapons).

Had a chance to pull out my 3.5 book, and I was incorrect. Large creatures with a natural reach of 10' also got the exception. So, I'm going to go out on a limb and conclude that the wording of the FAQ applies to large creatures as well (since it's worded in a neutral manner and applies to "a creature with 10 feet of reach").


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh.
I would've just lost money on betting that the promises to revisit Crane Wing were just to calm people down so it could get swept under the rug and forgotten about.

...but I'd have won it back on the bet that it still wouldn't get to be a Nice Thing.

Slightly boosted 3.5 Dodge with extra restrictions?
Really?
You guys are just messing with us deliberately now, I'm sure.


People only care about the crane wing rulings because the feat used to be good, probably too good since people actually took it and even bent their builds to include it.

Now it just joins the 90 percent of all feats which happen to suck, or be so marginal that it is a opportunity cost loss to take. Sturgeons Law applied retroactively.

I welcome the diagonal ruling, having blank squares on your threat range was silly. Diagonals are always going to have issues when using square grids, having somebody with reach somehow being impotent in certain directions is to exploitive. Sure the new ruling can be exploited too, but it already could with 5 foot steps and similar shenanigans.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Wow. In all of the holiday hubbub I totally missed these changes 'till now.

This is definitely going to create some new discussion among my play group.


You aren't alone, RD. Not sure how I missed this. Actually, it was just brought up by Imbicatus in another thread and I had to look into it immediately.

I understand that PFS people were allowed a respec. I'm not sure how that all shakes out for them. I mean, for a character designed to use that kind of feat it could totally wreck a build.

Not sure how my group will fall on the decision. We will probably leave it as it is written in the books until we discuss it a bit. I can't say I'm happy about the changes going back to 3.x dodge. I did feel it was a bit too powerful early but this seems like an over-nerfing. I think I would have changed the order of the Crane feats and made Wing come last. It seems like a pretty deep feat tax to allow a nice thing for martials to have.

Personally, I counted it as something that didn't need fixing. Single weapon on handed fighting martials are the LAST thing that needs nerfing in Pathfinder IMO.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem was never the crane wing feat, the problem was the master of many styles. And even that is debatable, really paizo nerfed the wrong thing

Sovereign Court

Well, maybe Crane Wing really was the problem. Even at higher level, some monsters are just built around having a single hard-hitting attack. Also, it'll block just about any single opponent who needs a move action before engaging in melee. The ability to completely negate everything a single opponent can do, that's just too much of a good thing.

That said, MoMS made it much, much worse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Well, maybe Crane Wing really was the problem. Even at higher level, some monsters are just built around having a single hard-hitting attack. Also, it'll block just about any single opponent who needs a move action before engaging in melee. The ability to completely negate everything a single opponent can do, that's just too much of a good thing.

That said, MoMS made it much, much worse.

Sorry I can't hear you over the sound of my overlapping Mirror Images and Displacement

Don't mind me I'll just eat this sandwich while you flail at me for a while.

Shadow Lodge

Rynjin wrote:

Sorry I can't hear you over the sound of my overlapping Mirror Images and Displacement

Don't mind me I'll just eat this sandwich while you flail at me for a while.

Oh look, my archer just removed all of your images, what a shame. Did I mention the bow is seeking?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Sorry I can't hear you over the sound of my overlapping Mirror Images and Displacement

Don't mind me I'll just eat this sandwich while you flail at me for a while.

Oh look, my archer just removed all of your images, what a shame. Did I mention the bow is seeking?

Oh look the archer hit the Crane Wing user repeatedly because Crane Wing doesn't block arrows with even the minimal amount of protection that Mirror Image provides from 6 attacks per round.

Spells: 1

Crane Wing: 0

The point being that any tactic that defeats a lot of spell buffs is generally going to be MORE effective against the Crane Wing user, so why do people get so up in arms about it?

It's really easy to get around Crane Wing.

Attack more than once.

Attack at range.

Attack with multiple creatures.

Attack with spells.

Really, do anything besides be a Vital Striking T-Rex and you're fine.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Besides, Mirror Image and Displacement don't make sound.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Besides, Mirror Image and Displacement don't make sound.

That's just because they're shy around strangers.

Five copies of yourself can get really chatty in private.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh my do we ever.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

THEY DON'T LET ME OUT!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

All of you, SHUT. UP.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I never get to have any fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I had fun before it was cool.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Please stop fighting!


I wonder when they plan to update the PRD with the new text for Crane Wing. Anyhow, I’ve been using the newest version of Crane Wing for a few sessions now. As I expected, it was pretty nice for fights where my PC was only threatened by a single foe. It still allowed the DM to have her fun though. She got to do some Con damage with touch attacks (+2 wasn't enough to make a difference there) and even inflict a negative level with a nat 20 (which Original Crane Wing would have auto deflected)

My PC has also just gained Crane Riposte. I was really confused by how that should work with fighting defensively until I went and read the actual FAQ page. For those who might not have read it, you get an AoO the first time the designated opponent misses you. The biggest weakness I see there is that the designated opponent might not attack you at all, in which case you waste the extra AC and the AoO.

Sovereign Court

@Devilkiller: however, you can designate an opponent at any time. So you can just wait to see which enemy actually starts attacking you.

They'll probably put the errata in the PRD on the next printing of UCombat. It's Paizo's normal MO to keep the PRD and the latest printing synchronized.

Shadow Lodge

How many personalities does TOZ have anyway?

Devilkiller wrote:
My PC has also just gained Crane Riposte. I was really confused by how that should work with fighting defensively until I went and read the actual FAQ page

Its been 1 month and crane riposte has not been adressed after this new faq. The faq has rendered crane riposte unusable (AGAIN!) due to unfortunate wording.(CW works as per target, CR works as per attack)

Sometimes i wish they just leave crane wing alone, its better to forget this nerf existed, it has pissed so many people, the only thing this nerf did is that more people picked power attack barbs intead of style monks.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ElementalXX wrote:
How many personalities does TOZ have anyway?

AM LEGION.

101 to 150 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Happy Holidays from the Pathfinder Design Team! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.