According to this new FAQ entry, much of what has been said on these boards about diagonals leaving gaps (or pseudo gaps) has now been invalidated.
Do you feel this was the right way to go, or do you think it's a step backwards? I personally think it's the most simple route that could have been taken, and thus likely the best one.
Discuss.
I think this is the best way to solve it without converting pathfinder to hexes. Speaking of which, has anyone made the conversion? I think I would enjoy making one.
I always found some of "what has been said on these boards about diagonals leaving gaps" to be adsurd. There may have been a contradiction between drawings and text, but the drawings showed where that reach goes (specific overrules general, right?), and it made the most sense anyways. RAW and RAI must go hand in hand, else we are playing a lesser game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meet the New Rule!
Same as the Old Rule!
I'll pick up my dice and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
It don't get ruled again! No! No! No!
I've always allowed 10 foot reach to hit diagonals, so I'm pretty happy with the ruling. If some people feel like this gives too much power to reach weapons I guess they could consider using the soft cover rules. We all know they exist, but I wonder how often they get used.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care for political correctness or hate speech, and thus always strive to use words as originally defined in the English language.
Meet the New Rule!
Same as the Old Rule!
I'll pick up my dice and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
It don't get ruled again! No! No! No!I've always allowed 10 foot reach to hit diagonals, so I'm pretty happy with the ruling. If some people feel like this gives too much power to reach weapons I guess they could consider using the soft cover rules. We all know they exist, but I wonder how often they get used.
I always use the soft cover rules for reach (and ranged) weapons.
I think the 3.5 exception was the easiest way to do it.
In a related note, IIRC the chapter says reach, not "reach weapons" so any monster with reach should take that cover penalty also.
Does anyone apply the penalty in that case?
CENSORSHIP!? Help! Help! I'm being repressed! You see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?
Just kidding. Thanks. I'd just as rather this thread not get derailed by oversensitive prudes.
"No longer queer"????
He's taking it back.
|
I don't care for political correctness or hate speech, and thus always strive to use words as originally defined in the English language.
That's kind of ignoring the fact that English is probably one of the must mutable languages there is, and words change definition easily due to use and other factors. The fact that a word at one time meant something doesn't mean that it's something that's accepted as its current definition, and defending words 'original definition' doesn't really help anyone aside from those who are unwilling to accept change. I mean I personally enjoy the fact that the word literally has become a contronym.
Sorry, 'word defenders' are something of an issue with me.
Personally I'm still not exactly sure how this change works, and I'd love to see an example of the differences between it and the previous ruling with a grid interaction, like in the same way that the Core rulebook has certain interactions shown with token and such. I think someone tried this in the thread about the topic, but it never really seemed to come together.
I had thought an Errata for this was already out and I just didn't know where to find it.
In the absence of an Errata for this, my inclination for an Errata would be to leave the threatened squares the old way, but to rule that if you move through a corner shared by 2 threatened squares or a threatened square and an impassable square, you provoke an Attack of Opportunity. Fixes the vulnerable corner problem without extending diagonal 10' reach to 15'.
UnArcaneElection, The Devs have FAQ'd it and stated that an Errata will be coming. The Pathfinder rule cards already reflect the change.
The poll thread I made a couple years back shows that 89% of pollsters (currently 151 to 18) use the 3.5 reach weapon exception despite the fact that it was not in the Pathfinder rules.
The Rules cards, FAQ, and future Errata re-introduce to the rules what most of us have been doing anyhow.
|
I approve of this F.A.Q. and future errata.
I formally complained that Paizo dropped the ball on this and refused to admit their error. I have been proven wrong on that and respect Paizo more for setting this straight.
Don't forget that ranged attacks also have to take that penalty for shooting through peoplr. It has actually really gotten on my nerve that it seems like nobody ever learns that and like I have to teach it nearly every single game. Though hopefully it is only because I see so many different players between trying out new people in home games and meeting more at PFS.
|
I think it's a good change. There's no perfect and pretty fix for this issue, because you're basically trying to project a circle onto squares and that just doesn't quite work.
But this fix is easy to understand and explain. It's also easy to use. And it doesn't cause any ridiculous or unfair effects. You can't 5ft step from outside through to the inside area without an AoO, and there's no problem in diagonal hallways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using the exception of 3.5 was the best solution.
Using the exception of 3.5 was the best solution.That's what this new FAQ does.
I know.
@Gauss - Yeah, I'm sure that users of the soft cover rules are out there. I wonder if you're any more common than users of the pre-FAQ ruling for diagonal reach were though. Perhaps enforcing the -4 would create a speed bump for some of the more powerful ranged attackers (and completely demoralize the folks who just whip out ranged weapons once in a while when they can't get into melee)
@wraithstrike - The only time I've seen the soft cover rules brought up was once when somebody was trying to avoid an AoO. I wonder if being taller than the "man in the middle" would allow you to strike the next foes in line without any penalty though. Perhaps I'll try to sketch it out on the battle mat.
Devilkiller, those that use ranged weapons once in a while usually don't have more than one effective attack so moving to a position where they are not shooting through cover is not as much of an issue.
Just a note: Cover provides a +4 AC bonus, not a -4 attack penalty although for simplicity many people just call it an attack penalty.
Perhaps I should clarify that I'm not against using soft cover although it seems like the sort of thing DMs in a home game might want to give players some notice about if there's going to be a change to how things are run. Knowing that tall creatures can attack over short ones without trouble should allay my girlfriend's concerns that her Phalanx Fighter/Druid won't be able to take advantage of AoOs if we start using the soft cover rules. I'd imagine that being mounted would allow you to use the mount's height (or perhaps even a little more)
Maybe soft cover gets used more in PFS. If so that's interesting and might explain why a guy who had never used the soft cover rules before suddenly started bringing them up after playing PFS for a few months recently. Ironically it was his PC who was stuck making some ranged attacks into melee a few times last session. He couldn't have really moved to get a clear shot due to terrain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have taken Rodinia's idea of showing how reach weapons and soft cover works and provided several views in this image. Note that side view 1 can also be used for medium creatures (on a large mount) with a reach of 10'.
Red lines indicate that there is not a clear shot (cover).
Ascalaphus, there are cover rules for height (quoted below). What I drew has the exact same results as that rule but is a visual representation of it.
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.
Using just the quoted rule we get:
Attacker is twice as tall as any obstacle (Ally 1, Ally 2, or Target 2).Target 1 is equally close to the obstacle (Ally 1) so has cover.
Target 2 is farther away from the obstacle (Ally 2) so does not have cover.
Target 3 is closer to the obstacle (Target 2) so has cover.
These are the same results as the visual representation.
Going with a side view can help people understand why the LOaC rule works and it usually resolves any disagreement at the table as to what height is doing when it comes to cover or line of sight issues.
Pathfinder tries to simplify the effects of height by providing rules such as the LOaC rule so that people do not have to look at a side view. While this is great for some people it confuses others and ultimately going to a side view resolves that problem.
|
|
I'm not entirely sure that "obstacles (such as walls)" also include creatures.
But if we do go with that, you get the fuzzy question of how tall creatures are.
- A female dwarf is at least 3'9" tall according to the CRB, and a male half-orc at most 6'10". Both are medium.
- A horse is at least 5' tall, and a troll is typically 14' tall, according to the CRB. Both are Large.
So the half-orc can actually be taller than the horse, despite being a size category lower. The troll is twice as tall as the horse.
So if you want to use the low-obstacle rule with creatures, you have to start looking up the height of the creatures. You can't just rely on their spacing.
Unfortunately, height is arbitrary so I prefer to use the cube method. In a (seeming) attempt to simplify things Pathfinder's rules regarding the 3rd dimension of combat are sparse but that only serves to complicate them when it does come into play.
Going with cubes fixes the issue entirely even if you wind up with strange circumstances such as the 14' creature in a 10' cube.
Edit: I looked in 3.5 also and there are a couple of oblique references to cubes but nothing really conclusive.
Example: A halfling (Small) fights the same cloud giant. The halfling, like the human, occupies a single space. If the halfling tries to occupy one of the giant’s cubes, the normal number of halflings (one) could fit, since the creatures are three size categories apart.
It appears that back in 3.5 the cube concept did exist but was also not defined. Without the examples we don't even have this to reference in Pathfinder.
I also checked to see if it had the Low Obstacles and Cover rule and it did (unchanged).
Edit 2: I found it in the DMG. I cannot find a similar rule in Pathfinder (one more example of a definition left behind) but at least this explains where many of us get the idea from.
As a general rule, consider creatures to be as tall as their space, meaning that a creature can reach up a distance equal to its space plus its reach.
horse is large long and troll is large tall.
When I saw the Gaussian Reach Diagram it confounded me. Now that explanations tying it to the low obstacle rules have been offered I think I’m beginning to understand it though I still have questions. Some of those questions have more to do with a creature’s height in cubes than the soft cover rules themselves though. A Large (long) creature like a Lion or Tiger takes up 4 squares on the battle mat. Does it also take up the 4 squares above those, or is it considered 5 feet tall like a Medium sized creature (which might actually be 6 feet tall)? I’ve seen disagreements in the past about how many cubes such creatures take up, especially if they’re trying to fly near the ceiling.
I’m also not sure if there’s any actual rule on the height of mounted characters beyond the Combat chapter's advice that, "For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat."
Devilkiller, if we go by the 3.5 standard then a Horse takes up a 10x10x10 space the same as a Troll does. But Pathfinder has no such statement so it is a great blank area into which people will use whatever makes sense to them.
What makes sense to me is that 10x10 in 2d is 10x10x10 in 3d (KISS) and to draw lines as I did in my diagram so that people have a visual idea of whether an obstacle (or creature) provides cover or not.
|
|
Well, the cube method is certainly much more practical than looking up actual height of creatures all the time. (If you can even find them.) I arrived (independently) at the same conclusion as Charon's Little Helper; that [long] creatures should count as one height class smaller.
For mounted creatures then, the KISS next step would be to just situate the creature's cube on top of it's mount.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is the best way to solve it without converting pathfinder to hexes. Speaking of which, has anyone made the conversion? I think I would enjoy making one.
My table tried using hexes once. It worked great in outdoor combat. Felt clunky as all heck in buildings. Outside of that it didn't change much of anything. If I had to pick one or the other I would stick with squares, but hexes are *slightly* better when not constrained by human constructions.
|
|
I think this is the best way to solve it without converting pathfinder to hexes. Speaking of which, has anyone made the conversion? I think I would enjoy making one.My table tried using hexes once. It worked great in outdoor combat. Felt clunky as all heck in buildings. Outside of that it didn't change much of anything. If I had to pick one or the other I would stick with squares, but hexes are *slightly* better when not constrained by human constructions.
This - and most of Pathfinder seems to be around buildings or in dungeons. Hexes work great for large scale strategy games (if you're not using inches) - but I prefer squares for RPGs.
My only issue with the reach and 2nd diagonal ruling is that it should be a distance ruling, not a specific weapon type or reach range ruling.
I get why 10ft hitting the 2nd diagonal is easier for people to play (this hasn't been my personal experience, but I completely understand). But, the 2nd diagonal should be 10ft. for everything, not just reach. Movement (over the course of one round) should be 10ft over the first two diagonals. If it's 10ft for your weapon, it should be 10ft if I'm coming at you from that way. A 10ft Paladin aura should catch that square as well. Someone using 15ft. reach should be able to stand in a diagonal hallway and find a spot to hit the spear-wielding fighter with their cone spell/whip/tentacle/etc. and not be threatened - since it's a 15ft. vs. 10ft. reach battle going on.
Everyone should get the advantage of those first two diagonals being 10ft.
Ruling it only for a specific type of 10ft. is, IMHO, poor practice and only shifts the problem to other things in the game, and makes reach better than is was (if you didn't already play this way). If the adjustment is to help game play, it shouldn't have the overall effect of making reach straight up better vs. everything else that is defined as 10 feet.
|
|
Can you suggest a specific and succinct rules suggestion for how this should be?
I ask because the problem it solved is an artifact of the grid system. Such a system is guaranteed (want a formal mathematical proof?) to have this kind of flaw. Fix it in one place, and the problem is guaranteed to show up elsewhere. What we're looking for is the most playable approach. I think the developers are going the right way.
Right, I understand the mathematical part. Personally, I would say that 10ft. reach threatening the the 2nd diagonal is definitely not more playable than it not threatening it. Therefore, specific errata addressing it - that is, errata that is much more specific than I feel it should be - doesn't sit well with me.
I'm obviously in the tiny minority here on the forums, but wanted to make my point heard about the practice of this type of errata.
As to your first question - I would suggest (and this is admittedly not thought through at this point - just trying to address the question) treating the first two diagonals as 10ft. for everything in the game - and beyond that doing the every-other-one thing. And yes, there is still a point of artifact.
Maybe that's a better way to express what I'm getting at - that is, since there will always be a point of artifact with the distances on a square grid, players and DMs will always be adjusting. So, why are we creating errata that only applies to a very specific part of the combat system? To me, the whole point of how PF rules are structured is that this is the exact type of thing you need to find your own way through - so it should remain as such.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This errata fixes a specific, common, and ongoing rules problem. This issue came up for my characters about every third fight. Here's the problem:
* Foe approaches PC with reach on the diagonal. This is a very common occurrence. It's obvious that an AoO is in order, even though strict RAW denies the AoO, because the foe never leaves a threatened square. That's the reason for the '3.5 reach exception', which has just been officially added to Pathfinder. According to poll results, about 85% of GMs used this non-Pathfinder rule anyway, and about 15% did not. In supposedly-RAW PFS play I found that 100% of GMs use the '3.5 reach exception'.
* OK, so you get your AoO and trip the foe.
In which square do they fall prone?!?! If they fall prone adjacent then they can stand back up without provoking, because they are inside your reach envelope. If they fall prone in the second diagonal then they can stand back up without provoking, because they were (before errata) outside your reach envelope.
If the same foe approaches either horizontally or vertically and is tripped the same way, the foe is guaranteed to fall prone where you threaten them.
Grid orientation thus determines optimal combat tactics. The best way to neutralize a reach weapon wielder is to approach on the diagonal, because it's likely to hurt less than a horizontal approach. This leads to a tactical battle for control of the diagonal approach lanes. This is ridiculous, because 'diagonal' is just an artifact of the grid.
This errata fixes that problem in one swell foop. It surely creates problems elsewhere, but we hope those new problems are smaller and less intrusive into our role playing and roll playing.