Most anything range based starts at the corner of your square, not within your square, and linked to the corner of another square. So you are correct. Kinda. Because it's actually a 10 foot throw.
15ft because he's throwing across two diagonals?
5ft would be square 5, 10ft would be the unmapped square between 5 and 7.
That's 15'. Here's the rule:
Diagonals
When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on.
You can’t move diagonally past a corner (even by taking a 5-foot step). You can move diagonally past a creature, even an opponent.
You can also move diagonally past other impassable obstacles, such as pits.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/#TOC-Measuring-Distance
for ranged attack, no it's 15 ft away. For a 10ft reach you do threaten and can attack into that square.
diagonals go every other. The first diagonal (5) is 5ft away from (3), second (7) is 15ft from (3). SO area of effect and ranged attack ranges don't include that second diagonal.
Most anything range based starts at the corner of your square, not within your square, and linked to the corner of another square. So you are correct. Kinda. Because it's actually a 10 foot throw.
I want to agree with this because that is what makes sense in my head. The ranged weapon shouldn't have to travel through the square it is thrown/shot from. However, I can't find this rule. Without that rule it would be 15'. Justify it however you want, I guess...
Justify it however you want, I guess...That's the problem, you know? It feels wrong. From corner to corner it's only a hair over 7', so how the crap is that a 15' shot? If you go center square to center square though, it's 14.14'.
There are arguments to look at it either way, and the 10' reach weapon errata definitely throws a wrinkle. But at the end of the day them's the rules. It can be frustrating, but this game of our isn't always a perfect simulation.
You shouldn't count the square the character is in and the first diagonal only counts as 5ft (the second would count as 10).
This means a character in square 3 attacking towards square 7 would be shooting/throwing 10ft.
You shouldn't count the square the character is in and the first diagonal only counts as 5ft (the second would count as 10).
This means a character in square 3 attacking towards square 7 would be shooting/throwing 10ft.
Do you mean 15? 7 is the second diagonal from 3, that makes it the +10 distance square making it 15ft away since pathfinder every other diagonal is +10ft away instead of +5ft away.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a fun discussion. According to the FAQ: a creature with 10 foot reach threatens the second diagonal
It IS called out as an exception to how diagonals normally work. So for a thrower, it's 15 feet away, but for a polearm wielder, it's effectively 10 feet away.
So for a thrower, it's 15 feet away, but for a polearm wielder, it's effectively 10 feet away.
Freaking weird, right? I think that's the right ruling, but it's so counter-intuitive that...well...it caused this thread to exist.
As I understand it, the original rule for reach weapons followed the normal 15' rules, leaving "blank spots" at the corners of the threatened area. That meant people using a grid could run into situations where creatures approach a reach-weapon fighter while never passing through a threatened square, and that the fighter never got his attack of op. They changed the ruling in that specific case to prevent silly situations like, "Charge the pikemen on the slant! They'll never see it coming!" The downside is that you now have to deal with this present confusion.
Do you mean 15? 7 is the second diagonal from 3, that makes it the +10 distance square making it 15ft away since pathfinder every other diagonal is +10ft away instead of +5ft away.You shouldn't count the square the character is in and the first diagonal only counts as 5ft (the second would count as 10).
This means a character in square 3 attacking towards square 7 would be shooting/throwing 10ft.
I was just real stupid this morning and was looking at square 2 instead of square 3.
I really don't know why.
the way diagonals work by raw is dumb just make each square 5 feet and be done with it
That would work if the game was in hexes but it's not so the diagonal 5-10-5-10 is needed otherwise diagonal movement would be stupid strong.
its basic math if you have 2 paths one goes from a->b->c and takes you 5 mins to complete and one path from a->c which takes 3 mins why should they be trying to make that 3 min time to 5 minsthe way diagonals work by raw is dumb just make each square 5 feet and be done with itThat would work if the game was in hexes but it's not so the diagonal 5-10-5-10 is needed otherwise diagonal movement would be stupid strong.
It's basic math, but you have it wrong. It should take longer to walk a mile and a half southeast than to walk a mile south, but it should take less time to walk a mile and a half southeast than to walk a mile south, turn 90 degrees, and then walk a mile east.
If you're six squares south and six squares east of your starting point, you're about 45 feet from where you started. The even-diagonal rule handles that cleanly; your proposal would instead have covered 45 feet in the time it takes to walk 30 feet.
its basic math if you have 2 paths one goes from a->b->c and takes you 5 mins to complete and one path from a->c which takes 3 mins why should they be trying to make that 3 min time to 5 minsthe way diagonals work by raw is dumb just make each square 5 feet and be done with itThat would work if the game was in hexes but it's not so the diagonal 5-10-5-10 is needed otherwise diagonal movement would be stupid strong.
Because, if we're assuming 45 degree angle distances, that diagonal distance is 1.4(142135623730950488016887242097) times longer than either of the cardinal legs that make up that triangle. By alternating 5-10-5-10 you very nearly emulate that difference with a very close 1.5 with a very simple system that does not complicate things.