I don't see why making it so characters could move diagonally faster would make the already easy to understand FAQ ruling on 10' reach any better or easier.
Auras are a different matter altogether, but I think the problem there is not how to count the distance of diagonals but how the effect is centered and measured. I think it would be easy and sensible if a 5' aura effect on a creature affected everything in the squares adjacent to that creature's space rather than everything in the squares adjacent to one vertex of that creature's space. In other words, a 5' aura centered on you would affect everybody within 5' of you while a 10' aura would affect everybody within 10' and a 20' aura would affect everybody within 20'.
This is already how a Paladin's Aura of Courage works (As per, "Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects."). There are some other effects such as spells which are tied to a vertex though, and that can cause some weird situations.
This errata fixes a specific, common, and ongoing rules problem. This issue came up for my characters about every third fight.
I understand that it's a very commonly used exception used as you and others have detailed. I just think it should remain an exception that the DM chooses to employ. Using errata means that the rules themselves create situations of "10ft" meaning different things depending on what you're using. That's odd to me, so I'm surprised they're making it actual errata.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@thundercade: Making it a widespread houserule that a GM chooses to use or not to use, is not good enough for things like PFS.
In PFS, your reach-warrior should just work the same every game. It's not a super-obscure concept; it's a pretty mainstream part of the game. Lots of monsters use reach weapons and lots of PCs use them. Core pieces of the combat rules shouldn't be subject to table variation.
|
... Core pieces of the combat rules shouldn't be subject to table variation.
Precisely. In a home game one can check with the GM, 'How do you run this situation?' In PFS play, because you have a different GM every session, any rules with 'table variation' create an immediate problem. This was a big glaring 'table variation' issue.
If 85% of GMs do things one way, and 15% do it the other way, you never know for sure which way it's going to be. Will this particular GM allow me a trip attempt if that foe moves in on the diagonal to attack our healer, or not? Even though 100% of PFS GMs I have encountered use that particular house rule, it would have been totally legitimate for a GM to not use it as it was not RAW. This errata reduces tables variation, so I call it a good thing.
Well, maybe we've touched on the point where I'll just have to disagree as a non-PFS player.
I agree with the need for consistency, especially for PFS as you guys point out. That makes perfect sense.
Putting the 3.5 exception into actual rules is the simplest method (that I can think of). I agree on that point as well.
I'm trying to say kind of has two parts:
1. This ruling is not the only way to achieve a consistent way to treat the situation. (as an example, leaving RAW as is is another valid and consistent way to deal with it - just not one that anyone wants, but it is consistent)
2. This ruling, IMHO, is unfair to other situations and player tactics. It is too far reaching (no pun intended, seriously) with permanent consequences to distance on the grid. For an extreme example - the ruling could be to treat a reach weapon as threatening a the boxes formed by the 2nd and 3rd diagonals. In this case, it is simple, solves the issues, and consistent. But, of course, it is obviously too powerful. So of course that's not what the rule is.
So, threatening the 2nd diagonal all the time, no matter what, is still too powerful to me. So the consistent solution that ends up being used - if needed for things like PFS - should be something else. My view is that it should be specific to the problems in question - namely AoO's, tripping and diagonal hallways (correct?) - even if it gets a little complicated. The simplicity of the 3.5 exception is not worth the unfairness, to me.
So if the 3.5 exception is the preferred way of dealing with it, then dealing with it that way should be left as a house rule. If it was a more fair way, then yes, make it errata even if it's complicated. GMs would still be just as free to employ the 3.5 exception and it sounds like they have been for a long time and would continue to do so. This way, in the unlikely event you get a GM who wants it RAW, then you still know what's going to happen.
@Magda, on that note - since 100% of the GMs you run into employ the 3.5 exception before this new ruling...that one GM you that you might have run into that insisted on RAW now has the very same chance of deciding to house rule it back the other way after the new ruling. So how does this buy anyone any consistency? House rule was ok before, it should be now - correct? By definition it doesn't reduce table variability - that chance is still there.
I'm not sure how being able to hit people who are two squares away from you while you're using a polearm can really seem "too powerful" or who it is unfair to.
I'm not sure how being able to hit people who are two squares away from you while you're using a polearm can really seem "too powerful" or who it is unfair to.
Whips, cone spells, creatures with 15ft. reach, or just anyone who wants to stand in that spot and not provoke from a ranged attack or spell cast. If they never intend on approaching the 10ft reach-wielder, then I don't think they should suffer being threatened in a square that is 15ft away by definition. This is the situation I seem to run into more often than the issues that are fixed with the new reach ruling.
I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with me on this, I'm just explaining what I mean.
Ok, at least I know what you're talking about now though I'd say you're right to expect that not many people will agree those concerns are important.
I'm not sure how being able to hit people who are two squares away from you while you're using a polearm can really seem "too powerful" or who it is unfair to.Whips, cone spells, creatures with 15ft. reach, or just anyone who wants to stand in that spot and not provoke from a ranged attack or spell cast. If they never intend on approaching the 10ft reach-wielder, then I don't think they should suffer being threatened in a square that is 15ft away by definition. This is the situation I seem to run into more often than the issues that are fixed with the new reach ruling.
I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with me on this, I'm just explaining what I mean.
Thank you. That really helped me to understand the situation.
I think the ruling makes everything easier, and if the occasional extra attack gets in also that is fine by me.