Hi everyone, I am currently arguing with a fellow GM about the use of a reach weapon across a strange diagonal movement, and was hoping you lovely community could .
Use this image as a guide to understand what I mean (excuse its crudeness): http://i.imgur.com/C0RGmP7.png
- There is a medium creature holding a reach weapon (ranseur) occupying cube 3 (C1) and a flying medium creature occupying cube 8 (C2).
- The rules say that the first step of diagonal movement is counted as a single square (5ft).
In my mind, the movement of the ranseur travels from C1 5ft horizontally across, then 5ft diagonally upwards towards C2. In this case, the distance is considered 10ft. as there is only one diagonal movement being made.
In my fellow GM's mind, the movement of the ranseur travels diagonally upwards in-between cube 5 & 6, then diagonally upwards to strike C2. In this case, the distance is considered 15ft. as there are two diagonal movements being made.
Who is right?
You should be able to hit the creature. The diagrams at the following page might help:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/space-reach-threatened-area-te mplates
Halfway down, it shows which squares you threaten as a medium creature with reach. That's all 2D and doesn't account for vertical distance, but since you drew a diagram in a flat cross-section, the effect should be the same.
(Of course, if there's also diagonal movement between you and the flying creature, that changes things. However, that's not the impression I got from your drawing.)
The rules for three dimensional combat are very tricky.
In a standard two-dimensional battle, reach weapons threaten the second diagonal and can attack it. But for three dimensions, it's very much a tricky game.
Your GM has the right to declare things going a particular way for his campaign, so if he rules against the second diagonal for aerial combat, that's how it goes.
Of course, if there's also diagonal movement between you and the flying creature, that changes things. However, that's not the impression I got from your drawing.
Thanks for your reply, it helps a lot. No, there is no diagonal distance between C1 and C2. they are facing each other on one axis, while one is 5ft in the air two squares away. The only diagonal being made is the one from the ground to the square 5ft above the ground that C2 occupies.
From what I can see in the link you posted, it applies to a 2D viewpoint but doesn't cover 3D action, and this reach attack does not traverse through 3D space, so I think I'm correct.
Of course, the GM always has the final say, but in the end I was more trying to gain some information about this strange circumstance in order to convince him that this is how it should work more accordingly to the rules.
Thanks!
Consider your reach as spherical. Remember that you cannot attack anything adjacent (within the 5' sphere) but only in the ring outside. Count your reach from one corner of your square for determining reach, always, and you avoid a lot of weird complications as to where attacks are landing.
Remember that you can also snipe around corners with this trick. You choose one of your corners: if you can make straight lines without intersecting an obstacle to any corner of a target, you can hit it. If you can draw a straight line to EVERY corner of a target, it has no cover.
The same goes for partial (one corner) and improved (three corners) cover.
This means:
If you are standing in 6, you cannot reach 3, 2, 5, 8, or 9. According to RAW you also cannot reach cube 10, but you do get an attack of opportunity if an opponent moves from 10 to 8. You can reach all other cubes. Also, if you are standing at 6, a flying enemy at 8 is NOT flanked by an ally standing at 12, assuming you have a spiked gauntlet to threaten adjacent creatures. An ally would have to be at 10 for the opposite corners rule to apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
10ft reach has a cube of threatened squares.
From your diagram and explanation it should be treated exactly as you would treat it for a 2-d space on the flat ground. Distance of things start to get slightly more complicated when the creature is 5 squares in front of you, 2 squares to the left, and 4 squares above you. But when one dimension is left out, just treat it like the flat space of the normal playing grid.
In my fellow GM's mind, the movement of the ranseur travels diagonally upwards in-between cube 5 & 6, then diagonally upwards to strike C2. In this case, the distance is considered 15ft. as there are two diagonal movements being made.
Diagonal movement that lands between (or on the line) of two grid squares isn't a thing. When counting distance it is always from a grid square to a grid square. So in this case it could be 3-5-8 or 3-6-8. But it is not 3-5.5-8. There is no grid 5.5. You pick either 5 or you pick 6. 3-6 is of course orthogonal, as is 5-8 - so in both cases you have a single diagonal cost.
Reach... there are vague rules... and shady unprinted erratas on this. We had long debates about this at our table, and now I mostly try to avoid it.
For extra fun cast enlarge person on yourself.
For extra fun cast enlarge person on yourself.
*Michael Scott*
"NO GOD! NO GOD PLEASE NO! NO! NO! NOOOOOOOOOOO!"
