Reach weapons no longer cutting corners


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Changes to Crane wing and corners with reach weapons

Sovereign Court

Well at least I was going off what they did intend for some time. Unsure whether I'm glad they're changing it or not. Time will tell.

Thanks for pointing this out!

Grand Lodge

Sior wrote:

Well at least I was going off what they did intend for some time. Unsure whether I'm glad they're changing it or not. Time will tell.

Thanks for pointing this out!

Well, it makes running PC or NPCs with 10' reach easier to handle, and removes the issue of such a character in some of the all-diagonal maps out there. The first big room in Accursed Halls, for example.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's a change for the better. The previous "solution" to reach was obscure at best, and hidden in the bowels of the forum. Now we have an uninterrupted threatened perimeter for normal users of reach weapons. And it uses the rule that many people were already using, because it's the most intuitive.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad to see that reach weapons are finally taking their job seriously.


Yay, no wierd reach templates!!!

Shadow Lodge

Finally, no more having to explain the "new" (since 2008?) reach rules.

Boo to having to re-explain to all the people who finally "got it."


This helps explain it but does make being large with a reach weapon worse.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The two guys with polearms stuck in a diagonally drawn corridor can finally hit one another. Glad that's cleared up.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber

Of course, a far better solution would just be to go with hexes instead of squares.... :)

(I know, I know, not gonna happen, squares are way too entrenched, and easier for drawing maps. Still, with hexes, you don't have to worry about diagonals; yes, there are some "non-optimum" directions to run, but the difference isn't as bad as it is with 4e-style squares, and all you have to do is count unlike with 3e-style "the square root of 2 is 1.5" measurements.)

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
rknop wrote:
Of course, a far better solution would just be to go with hexes instead of squares.

Opinions clearly vary on that.

Personally, I like straight walls and 90° angles.


I can finally stop spinning the table!

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
gnoams wrote:
The two guys with polearms stuck in a diagonally drawn corridor can finally hit one another. Glad that's cleared up.

Well, they threaten each other. This is bringing back the "Ogre Exception" from 3.5

You still cannot attack someone with 10; reach on the second diagonal... you just threaten them.

At least that is how I read it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you threaten, you can attack.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Well, as the definition of threatened squares is "squares into which you can make a melee attack", I think you're reading it wrong.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I do not think I agree with that, Andy and John.

Threatened Squares - PRD wrote:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

This is from the Attacks of Opportunity section.

Note the text from the FAQ

FAQ wrote:
The cards are correct. As an exception to the way that diagonals normally work, a creature with 10 feet of reach threatens the second diagonal. These changes will be reflected in the next errata.

I am trying to find where in the combat section, other than Attacks of Opportunity, that it defines threatening.

In Attack:

PRD Melee Attack wrote:

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

This talks about striking targets, not threatening them.

Please quote and/or link the appropriate rules section that proves that threatening a square, and being able to strike a target in a square, are the same thing.

I am not trying to be difficult, but I am trying to read exactly what is being said.

Thank you.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Silbeg wrote:

I do not think I agree with that, Andy and John.

Threatened Squares - PRD wrote:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

Please quote and/or link the appropriate rules section that proves that threatening a square, and being able to strike a target in a square, are the same thing.

I am not trying to be difficult, but I am trying to read exactly what is being said.

Thank you.

You quoted it yourself in the Threatened Squares section above. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack..."

10' reach now threatens the second diagonal. If you threaten a square then you can make a melee attack into that square. I'm afraid I don't see where your confusion lies.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The errata modifies the text on reach and which squares are threatened by a 10' reach. As in.. As I read it, it adds sqaures that are threatened.

I do not read that it adds extra squares into which you may attack into. As I read it, were it true that an attack with a ten foot reach may attack into the second diagonal (using an Attack action, for example), they would have explicitly stated that.

This errata appears (perhaps in my eyes only) to affect threatened squares (which are defined under attacks of opportunity).

Note that what I quoted has not had the errata applied. I was quoting it, the entire section as it reads, prior to errata, for completeness in describing my understanding.

Now, granted, I do not own the cards. Perhaps the full, unabridged text from the cards would help me understand the difference here, if they have modified the rule on which squares you may attack into.

Simply put.... Threatened squares are squares into which you may make an attack of opportunity into. They are generally the squares you may attack into, but the inclusion of the word generally typically means there may be exceptions. This seems to be one of them...

Michael Eshelman wrote:
10' reach now threatens the second diagonal. If you threaten a square then you can make a melee attack into that square. I'm afraid I don't see where your confusion lies.

My confusion lies in the fact that this is not how it is defined. In fact, it is the other way around, based on the sections I have quoted.

Grand Lodge

Silbeg wrote:

I do not think I agree with that, Andy and John.

In Attack:

PRD Melee Attack wrote:

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

This talks about striking targets, not threatening them.

Please quote and/or link the appropriate rules section that proves that threatening a square, and being able to strike a target in a square, are the same thing.

I am not trying to be difficult, but I am trying to read exactly what is being said.

Thank you.

Technically, you are correct. If you are to play the game by strict RAW, there has been no change in the squares you are allowed to hit with a Melee Attack.

However, I believe that the intent is clear that the FAQ should be read as "a creature with 10 feet of reach threatens [and can attack] the second diagonal".

This will be how I will rule in any games I GM.

PS You may like to mention this in the FAQ thread.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Phosphorus wrote:

Technically, you are correct. If you are to play the game by strict RAW, there has been no change in the squares you are allowed to hit with a Melee Attack.

However, I believe that the intent is clear that the FAQ should be read as "a creature with 10 feet of reach threatens [and can attack] the second diagonal".

Thank you. My issue here is that is not how the FAQ was defined. I am trying to determine RAW, and not second guess the developers. So, I can only go by what is written, explicitly.


Silbeg wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:

Technically, you are correct. If you are to play the game by strict RAW, there has been no change in the squares you are allowed to hit with a Melee Attack.

However, I believe that the intent is clear that the FAQ should be read as "a creature with 10 feet of reach threatens [and can attack] the second diagonal".

Thank you. My issue here is that is not how the FAQ was defined. I am trying to determine RAW, and not second guess the developers. So, I can only go by what is written, explicitly.

So do people not fall prone when they die in your games?

This is not a raw system. It breaks down under raw. Its rai all the way.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Silbeg - you're reading a lot more into the presence of that word "generally" than is warranted. It appears in the clarification that "Generally, (threatened squares) are the squares adjacent to your position". That's true because, generally, melee attacks have a 5' reach, and so those are the squares you can attack. If you have a different reach, you'll be able to attack more or less squares, and so you will threaten more or less squares.

Nothing (either in the original RAW or in this new FAQ entry) warrants the invention of a new type of square - one which you threaten, but into which you are unable to make a melee attack.

Let's face it - threatening a square means that if something happens in that square that provokes an attack of opportunity, you'll be able to take that attack. If wielding a 10' reach weapon lets you threaten the second diagonal square, it means you'll be able to make a melee attack into that square (because that's what taking an attack of opportunity is). If you're unable to make an attack into that square, then how can you be said to threaten it?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, well I thought it was cleared up, but clearly I did not account for people's obstinate refusal to comply with rules clarification that they disagree with.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As John Francis said, there is no precedence for being able to threaten but not attack a square.

The very definition of threaten is that you threaten all squares into which you can attack. So by RAW, you can attack into every square you threaten. Its the inverse of the rule that must be true for the rule to be true.

What you, Silbeg, are proposing is that the FAQ is making two instead of one change to the rules, despite it only explicitly making one change.

Isn't it simpler to assume the rules work exactly as they always have except for the one explicit change?


Silbeg, this is basically the reinstatement of the 3.5 reach exception. How they wind up wording it in the rulebook has still not been revealed but everyone who is familiar with the problems regarding reach weapons and the 3.5 reach weapon exception understands how it is intended to work.

For clarification here is the 3.5 text:

3.5 PHB p137 wrote:
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons (such as a longspear) threaten more squares than a typical creature. For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.) In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more; see Big and Little Creatures in Combat, page 149.

The reach weapon exception allowed reach weapon users to threaten, and therefore attack creatures in the second diagonal.


I personally play without squares, we just use a tape measure and whatever surface we have handy. It makes it more realistic for spellcasters not being able to exactly calculate what boxes will be hit or not before he even casts his fireball. Also, there are no more awkward movements and calculating every other diagonal.


Nessus_9th, that is definitely an option but not a good option for everyone. I used it at one point but for some of my players they could never figure out how far they could move or where everyone was.

Wargamers who have played games like Warhammer are more familiar with eyeballing the distances involved than people who are new to the genre of RPG/Wargames.


Andrew Christian wrote:

As John Francis said, there is no precedence for being able to threaten but not attack a square.

The very definition of threaten is that you threaten all squares into which you can attack. So by RAW, you can attack into every square you threaten. Its the inverse of the rule that must be true for the rule to be true.

What you, Silbeg, are proposing is that the FAQ is making two instead of one change to the rules, despite it only explicitly making one change.

Isn't it simpler to assume the rules work exactly as they always have except for the one explicit change?

Technically, he is correct because this statement:

Quote:
The very definition of threaten is that you threaten all squares into which you can attack. So by RAW, you can attack into every square you threaten. Its the inverse of the rule that must be true for the rule to be true.

Does not actually follow from logic. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. It is completely possible to threaten all squares in which you can attack, but not be able to attack all squares that you threaten, at least it's possible from a logic standpoint.

From an RAI standpoint, threaten == can attack is probably what they are going for.


Gauss wrote:

Nessus_9th, that is definitely an option but not a good option for everyone. I used it at one point but for some of my players they could never figure out how far they could move or where everyone was.

Wargamers who have played games like Warhammer are more familiar with eyeballing the distances involved than people who are new to the genre of RPG/Wargames.

I understand that it might be a bit complicated at first but I fail to see how much more complicated it is than calculating diagonal movement and such. (for beginners)


Going gridless is predicated upon a person's ability to easily see distances without reference points.

When a person sees a grid they see reference points. This speeds the ability to see where everything is in relation to each other.

When there is no grid people have to see the relative distances in their head before they even get a ruler out. This takes experience and time.
For those without the experience by the time they have figured out what the second possibility for their action might be they have lost sight of what the first action might be. They have to go back and refigure it.

When I introduced gridless maps to my players it worked well for me and one of my players (who also had wargaming experience).
It worked poorly for everyone else. The time it took to process their turn doubled or tripled as they kept trying to get an idea of what they could do.

Summary: It isn't the measuring (counting of squares) that is slowed down, it is the planning. To go gridless, you need players who can easily visualize distances without easy reference points (the grid).

Edit: Back when I started playing Warhammer FB I had trouble seeing the distances without easy reference points and I wasn't the only one. There were people who would avoid using units that relied heavily on guessing the distance before being allowed to measure (such as Cannons).
It takes practice to be able to call out the estimated distance to correctly place the cannonball bounce point without being allowed to measure first.


Gauss wrote:

Going gridless is predicated upon a person's ability to easily see distances without reference points.

When a person sees a grid they see reference points. This speeds the ability to see where everything is in relation to each other.

When there is no grid people have to see the relative distances in their head before they even get a ruler out. This takes experience and time.
For those without the experience by the time they have figured out what the second possibility for their action might be they have lost sight of what the first action might be. They have to go back and refigure it.

When I introduced gridless maps to my players it worked well for me and one of my players (who also had wargaming experience).
It worked poorly for everyone else. The time it took to process their turn doubled or tripled as they kept trying to get an idea of what they could do.

Summary: It isn't the measuring (counting of squares) that is slowed down, it is the planning. To go gridless, you need players who can easily visualize distances without easy reference points (the grid).

Well, faced with a such a logical argument put in such a comprehensive way I have to bow my head and concede to your point. Mine however is a different one:

When beginners first learn to play pathfinder, or any grid based movement system RPG for that matter, it is just a simple for them to learn the grid based system as it is to use a measuring tape.

In the grid based movement you have, as you said, reference points. It is easy to, at a glance, judge where you are relative to where you want to go. Now I dont know how you did it without the grid, but we use a big blank sheet of paper and the GM draws the map of where the encounter is happening, to scale. Then we use figurines and the measuring tape to move around. Now I know that 30 ft is 6 inches and I have the measuring tape right there, stretched out to 6 inches, that is my reference point and the scale never changes.

It involves much more guess work than the grid system but for anyone who is not used to either system it is just as easy to learn that 6 inches is 30 ft and then eyeball it on the map as it is to learn that you can move 6 squares in any direction except diagonally then it's double movement on every other square. At least that's what I think.


I did basically the same, I use a dry erase white board and drew everything to scale. I had miniatures, they had measuring tools (tape/rulers). And still the players without wargaming experience had difficulty in the planning of their turns.

The grid makes it easy to see who threatens what and how far you can move. You can do it while other people are working on their turn.

Going gridless takes far more time to figure out where you can go, how you can get there, and who threatens who. All before a ruler is even involved. Even when you do involve the ruler they would have to measure each option and by the time they had finished the third option they had forgotten the first. It just took way longer.

As for people not used to either system, I also had people new to RPGs. They had an even harder time than those who were not new. Even with people helping, explaining, etc.

There have been studies regarding people's spatial visualization abilities and not everyone can see distances and relationships at the same level as others. By going gridless those people are at a disadvantage and that can be a hurdle to gridless play.

In fact, I had people ready to quit because of the frustration of gridless play. The moment I put a grid down (sharpie marker + yardstick on a whiteboard worked great) they could see the distances readily.

To borrow from what you wrote "eyeballing it" is the problem. There are both biological and sociological (experience) differences that create the differences in people's ability to "eyeball it".


Gauss wrote:


When I introduced gridless maps to my players it worked well for me and one of my players (who also had wargaming experience).
It worked poorly for everyone else. The time it took to process their turn doubled or tripled as they kept trying to get an idea of what they could do.

Summary: It isn't the measuring (counting of squares) that is slowed down, it is the planning. To go gridless, you need players who can easily visualize distances without easy reference points (the grid).

Edit: Back when I started playing Warhammer FB I had trouble seeing the distances without easy reference points and I wasn't the only one. There were people who would avoid using units that relied heavily on guessing the distance before being allowed to measure (such as Cannons).
It takes practice to be able to call out the estimated distance to correctly place the cannonball bounce point without being allowed to measure first.

Wow, frankly for me it totally the opposite. I usually always have the measure grids to even START planning - whereas when I played a gridless Stargate game (with nearly NO reference points besides other ships) I found it very easy, and relied primarily on units with a lot of "distance guesswork" (fixed forward facing weapons) and managed to completely own my opponent.

Whereas, a different game which actually simulated 3D grid (using stands), I nearly had a meltdown at. Because the grid itself was SO limiting, especially with the rules (basically stuff like: Planes can't dive straight down, or climb straight up, etc etc you can only move X grids up/down/left/right). I walked away midgame I couldn't handle it.


Well I guess my experiences are different than yours, because I have been playing gridless for nearly 10 years now. Players I introduced to DnD and/or pathfinder all understood the gridless system with ease, most of them said they thought it was simpler than with grids.

I dont have wargame experience and I started on grid maps way back when, no one I play with today has wargame experience and they all started on grid maps.

While I agree with most of what you said, it is hard to resolve the fact that I have never seen anyone complain in my 10+ years while you apparently had people freaking out and in tears ready to leave because they cant figure out how long 6 inches is while staring at it.(humorous exaggeration)


CommandoDude, it depends on where the problem is. If you are good at visualizing distances then you don't need a grid. Then it becomes an issue of 'do these rules work well'.

However, for those that are poor at visualizing distances they don't even get to the good/bad rules side of it because they are struggling with 'how far is that distance'.

Note: some rules systems could make the visualization problem better or worse but in general, if someone cannot visualize distances the rules are not going to be the main issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nessus_9th,

It also depends on the type of people you game with. Frankly, gamer types have typically grown up playing video games. This teaches spatial awareness. Not everyone new to RPG gaming is a gamer type though.

Put another way, most gamer types have been taught spatial awareness via video games since childhood. This gives us significant advantages when it comes to spatial awareness. There have been studies on this and the differences in spatial acuity between those with video game experience and those without are significant.

My point is not to say that "gridless is bad". Far from it, I would prefer gridless myself. But, the entire group needs to be able to deal with the spatial visualization issue and there are people who are not biologically wired or sociologically trained to do it and those people will have difficulty.

Edit: Here is a wiki link regarding Spatial Visualization. It is basic but it will give you the general idea.


The one time I had any success with a gridless game was with a group that did a lot of tabletop wargaming together, so we were all pretty used to working with measuring tapes and eyeballing distances.


Nessus_9th wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Nessus_9th, that is definitely an option but not a good option for everyone. I used it at one point but for some of my players they could never figure out how far they could move or where everyone was.

Wargamers who have played games like Warhammer are more familiar with eyeballing the distances involved than people who are new to the genre of RPG/Wargames.

I understand that it might be a bit complicated at first but I fail to see how much more complicated it is than calculating diagonal movement and such. (for beginners)

It is annoying and not everyone can judge equally. If the judgement is failed it should be because the character judged it wrong, and then we need a new rule for that.

In addition if I(not me specifically) can throw a football 70 yards/210 feet into a 1 foot area while making sure another person nearby can not get their hands on it, then putting a spell into a 5 foot square rectangle should not be that hard.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like what Gauss and Wraithstrike are saying here about going gridless. Does it sound like it would be fun and potentially very effective? Hell yes.

Would it be easy for most people? Nada.

I think one of the big problems would be in the way it would slow play down. It's easy to sit there and count squares off, sure some things come out wonky, but it's quick. Measuring everything out in itself will add time, then there's the time for people to sit there and try and keep things straight in their head, you end up having to do mathematical calculations. This then leads to people forgetting what they are doing and then everything just slows down.

Some people are just not going to have an aptitude for it, and personally I don't think a game like Pathfinder or DnD should punish those people for it. It becomes less about your character and more about how effective you are as a player at judging distance.

Again, I think going gridless makes a lot of sense, in many ways, and that a lot of players would enjoy it, but there are going to be a lot of people who would be frustrated by it.


Quote:
In addition if I(not me specifically) can throw a football 70 yards/210 feet into a 1 foot area while making sure another person nearby can not get their hands on it, then putting a spell into a 5 foot square rectangle should not be that hard.

yes, but can you do it consistently, every single time without messing up the distance once, never have it intercepted and never ever throw it 5ft to far or 5 ft to near? If you could, football games would be pretty boring...

Grand Lodge

Nessus_9th wrote:
Quote:
In addition if I(not me specifically) can throw a football 70 yards/210 feet into a 1 foot area while making sure another person nearby can not get their hands on it, then putting a spell into a 5 foot square rectangle should not be that hard.
yes, but can you do it consistently, every single time without messing up the distance once, never have it intercepted and never ever throw it 5ft to far or 5 ft to near? If you could, football games would be pretty boring...

Can a pro football player do it more consistently and more often than an armchair quarterback? Yes.

What your gridless rules are doing, by the way, is penalizing the players who do not professionally throw fireballs, lightning bolts or what-have-you around as their profession.

In real life, while I test high in IQ, my skills are oriented toward getting computers working, not in judging where I should place a 20' diameter sphere.

Seriously, making a PC live by the player's ability to judge distance, where their training is different, is not fair to either your players or the game.

Edit: Also, seriously, I would be willing to make a wager that some types of builds, which work fine with a grid, are not used often, or quickly moved away from, in your games.

Reach weapons and AoOs, for example, probably slow your game down immensely, as every time someone moves, you would need to measure exact distances away from various figures the moving figure travels, along with tracking its movement distances. Ugly.


kinevon wrote:
Nessus_9th wrote:
Quote:
In addition if I(not me specifically) can throw a football 70 yards/210 feet into a 1 foot area while making sure another person nearby can not get their hands on it, then putting a spell into a 5 foot square rectangle should not be that hard.
yes, but can you do it consistently, every single time without messing up the distance once, never have it intercepted and never ever throw it 5ft to far or 5 ft to near? If you could, football games would be pretty boring...

Can a pro football player do it more consistently and more often than an armchair quarterback? Yes.

What your gridless rules are doing, by the way, is penalizing the players who do not professionally throw fireballs, lightning bolts or what-have-you around as their profession.

In real life, while I test high in IQ, my skills are oriented toward getting computers working, not in judging where I should place a 20' diameter sphere.

Seriously, making a PC live by the player's ability to judge distance, where their training is different, is not fair to either your players or the game.

Edit: Also, seriously, I would be willing to make a wager that some types of builds, which work fine with a grid, are not used often, or quickly moved away from, in your games.

Reach weapons and AoOs, for example, probably slow your game down immensely, as every time someone moves, you would need to measure exact distances away from various figures the moving figure travels, along with tracking its movement distances. Ugly.

Whatever I'm done trying to explain, you're right, the game is slow as hell and AoO's are so complicated no one does them, no one plays a wizard because they can never ever get the distance right and what we are doing is not fair to the game or people that play it. We never have fights because no one is able to do anything except try to get somewhere then over shoot and end up out of the fight because they ran into a wall. We penalize players all the time, so much so that everyone leaves and never play Role playing games ever again, it is ugly.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Somehow, I don't think you are being sincere.


I'm just thinking out loud here, but if spatial visualization is the biggest problem of playing gridless, wouldn't the best way to play gridless, then, be on a grid?

I mean, instead of drawing the map on a blank, white playing field, use a standard dry-erase grid map; you'll still have the grid to use as spatial reference points, you'll simply be unconstrained by the grid when moving.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This FAQ, combined with the FAQ about grip-swapping a reach weapon, made a lot of people in my area happy.

Other than the fact that they have to re-brainwash themselves to remember it.

And just in time for my new reach weapon Paladin to start getting play.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Grip-swapping? I missed that one.


The faq that lets you change your grip on a longspear to use it as an improvised club.


Nefreet wrote:

This FAQ, combined with the FAQ about grip-swapping a reach weapon, made a lot of people in my area happy.

Other than the fact that they have to re-brainwash themselves to remember it.

And just in time for my new reach weapon Paladin to start getting play.

The FAQ is deliberately silent on what action grip-swapping a polearms is. Out of curiosity, what action does your group use?

(I use swift)


Quantum Steve wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

This FAQ, combined with the FAQ about grip-swapping a reach weapon, made a lot of people in my area happy.

Other than the fact that they have to re-brainwash themselves to remember it.

And just in time for my new reach weapon Paladin to start getting play.

The FAQ is deliberately silent on what action grip-swapping a polearms is. Out of curiosity, what action does your group use?

(I use swift)

Switching between a one-handed and a two-handed grip with a one-handed weapon like a longsword is a free action, so I'm figuring them meant it to be that for polearms. Myself, I'd treat it as a non-action.

Sovereign Court

I'd go with free action. Basically, at the end of your turn you gotta make up your mind whether to threaten close by or at range.

It does make it more interesting to get the Catch Off-Guard feat.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Reach weapons no longer cutting corners All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.