ClanPsi |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

On p455 it says: "Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally; 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 25-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

I believe it should read: "... 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

Speaking of which, why is there no thread for posting mistakes for future erratas? Paizo, please add one.

IOANNIS DOUNIS |

Hello,

I think that the numbers are ok, but the wording not so good.

It should say "remaining reach above 10 feet is measured normally".

So someone with 25ft reach only "uses" 10 feet of reach for the first two diagonal squares and 15 feet of reach for the two other, for a total of 4.

It would be absurd to be at a disadvantage having greater reach, i.e. using more reach for the first two squares than someone having just 10ft reach.

IOANNIS DOUNIS |

Your explaination doesn't work, as it would need 15ft. reach to get to 3 squares.

So, yes, ClanPsi, there is a mistake, it should be 30ft. for 4 squares. 5ft. for first square, 10ft. for 2 squares, 20ft. for 3 and 30ft for 4.

But it does not say anywhere that you can not reach 3 diagonal squares with 15ft of reach. The statement says that with 20ft of reach you can reach 3 diagonal squares, not that you need 20ft to do so.

IOANNIS DOUNIS |

Grid distance diagonally goes by 5-10-5-10-etc

The part of the sentence you cut:

"Unlike with measuring most distances, 10-foot reach can reach 2 squares diagonally"Sets an exception.

And then continues to explain that AFTER the exception, Reach is measured like Range.

Hence 25 and not 30

Yes ,thats a more clear explanation :) first two diagonal squares for reach only consume 10ft of reach.An exception to the general rule.

ClanPsi |

Grid distance diagonally goes by 5-10-5-10-etc

The part of the sentence you cut:

"Unlike with measuring most distances, 10-foot reach can reach 2 squares diagonally"Sets an exception.

And then continues to explain that AFTER the exception, Reach is measured like Range.

Hence 25 and not 30

If that were true then 15 feet would be 3 squares and 25 feet would be 4 squares, since it would be 5-10-5-10 starting from 10 feet. It specifically calls out 20 feet, though, which seems to point more towards my interpretation being the intended result.

shroudb |

8 people marked this as a favorite. |

shroudb wrote:If that were true then 15 feet would be 3 squares and 25 feet would be 4 squares, since it would be 5-10-5-10 starting from 10 feet. It specifically calls out 20 feet, though, which seems to point more towards my interpretation being the intended result.Grid distance diagonally goes by 5-10-5-10-etc

The part of the sentence you cut:

"Unlike with measuring most distances, 10-foot reach can reach 2 squares diagonally"Sets an exception.

And then continues to explain that AFTER the exception, Reach is measured like Range.

Hence 25 and not 30

it all depends when you start to add 5 or when you start to add 10 ft to the diagonals.

since we have the "10ft reach is 2, 20 ft is 3, 25ft is 4, etc" quote, it's just that:

natural reach: 1 diagonal

10ft reach(+5): 2 diagonals

20ft reach (+10): 3 diagonals

25ft reach (+5): 4 diagonals

35ft reach (+10): 5

40ft reach (+5): 6

etc

so it does follow the expected progression.

ClanPsi |

it all depends when you start to add 5 or when you start to add 10 ft to the diagonals.since we have the "10ft reach is 2, 20 ft is 3, 25ft is 4, etc" quote, it's just that:

natural reach: 1 diagonal

10ft reach(+5): 2 diagonals

20ft reach (+10): 3 diagonals

25ft reach (+5): 4 diagonals

35ft reach (+10): 5

40ft reach (+5): 6

etcso it does follow the expected progression.

Why would you count 10 as +5, though? It says "normally after 10 feet." Normally after 10 feet would imply that 10 is 0, which would be:

15ft reach (+5): 3 diagonals25ft reach (+10): 4 diagonals

30ft reach (+5): 5

Since that's absolutely ridiculous, it's a lot more sensible to presume that Paizo just made a typing error, especially considering the inconceivably large number of other mistakes throughout the CRB.

shroudb |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I don't know in fact. I remember on other discussions seing people calling for a faq, but they either have rights I don't have or this was on discussions that could be called for a faq.

PF1 forums had a Faq button (next to the flag, edit, etc)

So people could press that and it showed like: "15 people marked it for faq" and etc

Claxon |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

@ShadowShackleton Oh okay, thanks for the clarification. It's good to hear from an actual developer on the matter. I'm glad you're here to give us a definitive answer. -_-

@SuperBidi Is there a FAQ? The only one I know about was during a live stream a few weeks ago.

To give detail, Shroudb is correct and despite ShadowShackleton's short response it is still accurate.

The reasoning is because 10ft reach is an exception to what would otherwise be the trend.

The first diagonal costs 5 ft (that's the corner you get with natural reach). After that it costs 10ft for the next diagonal. Except, with 10ft reach you shouldn't get that diagonal. But that would basically mean a creature can guarded step into your reach and not provoke an AoO (if you have one). So to stop that "gap" the developers made a special rule that says "No, they get that square". And after that they go back to apply the rule.

So at 15ft reach you only get that same diagonal corner because it's 15ft away. You don't get the 3rd diagonal corner until you get 20ft reach, because 5ft +10ft +5ft = 20ft.

And the pattern continues from there.

Megistone |

Yeah, it wasn't easy to get the meaning. In fact, I had got it wrong until shroudb gave their explanation.

I think an even easier way to word it is: it's normal distance, but the second diagonal always costs 5ft (and it doesn't count towards the 5/10ft thing).

So for reach you count: 5, **5**, 10, 5, 10...

EDIT: or you could even say that the 'free' one is the first, and get the same result.

Claxon |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Another way to think of it, is if you apply the "over other diagonal costs 10ft" rule then 10ft reach should only reach the corner adjacent to your character. 15ft would get the second corner from your character. 20ft gets 3 (5+10+5). 30 gets 4 (5+10+5+10).

But 10ft gets an exception because it has a weird consequence that others don't, which is getting past someones reach without provoking.

Joana |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Speaking of which, why is there no thread for posting mistakes for future erratas? Paizo, please add one.

There is one right here.

ClanPsi |

Another way to think of it, is if you apply the "over other diagonal costs 10ft" rule then 10ft reach should only reach the corner adjacent to your character. 15ft would get the second corner from your character. 20ft gets 3 (5+10+5). 30 gets 4 (5+10+5+10).

But 10ft gets an exception because it has a weird consequence that others don't, which is getting past someones reach without provoking.

So what you're saying is that I'm right and the other two are wrong, since that's exactly what I've been saying.

Ascalaphus |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

If you gave 15ft reach three diagonals, then measuring a range (for example, how far can you shoot or cast a spell) would be different than measuring a reach. So then if you had 15ft of reach you would be able to attack someone who couldn't cast a 15ft range spell back at you. That would be very strange and confusing.

On the other hand, if you treat 10ft reach the same as everyone else, then it becomes really easy to close in on someone with a reach weapon. Because if you come in at the diagonal, you're 15ft away so therefore out of reach, and then move one square and you're 5ft away and you haven't provoked an AoO because you didn't leave a threatened square. In first edition they tried some really convoluted things to solve that, but in the end the easiest was to do the same as in Pathfinder 2.

So the general rule is, to determine the range of your diagonal reach, calculate squares in the same way as for movement or spell/ranged attack range. But for 10ft reach attacks specifically, you can reach two diagonals.

Now, reaching 15ft would also allow you to reach only two diagonals, since it takes 15ft of movement to move two diagonal squares. So at that point the reach radius overlaps. On the horizontal/vertical line though, 15ft reach is three squares and 10ft is two squares as the normal result of using movement cost to determine reach.

So yeah, it's a bit of a kludge, but it's impossible to do everything nicely. Looking at it from a geometry point of view, you're trying to neatly fill a circle with equal-size squares, and if your circle is very small, you get ugly edges.

Claxon |

Claxon wrote:So what you're saying is that I'm right and the other two are wrong, since that's exactly what I've been saying.Another way to think of it, is if you apply the "over other diagonal costs 10ft" rule then 10ft reach should only reach the corner adjacent to your character. 15ft would get the second corner from your character. 20ft gets 3 (5+10+5). 30 gets 4 (5+10+5+10).

But 10ft gets an exception because it has a weird consequence that others don't, which is getting past someones reach without provoking.

Uh, no I don't think so.

Either that or we're all saying the same thing.

Edit: Nevermind it'd been too long since I looked ta the original question of this thread and I forgot what the issue is.

It does seem like I agree with you.

I think I may have misunderstood things when I commented in this thread previously.

Pingwii |

If you gave 15ft reach three diagonals, then measuring a range (for example, how far can you shoot or cast a spell) would be different than measuring a reach. So then if you had 15ft of reach you would be able to attack someone who couldn't cast a 15ft range spell back at you. That would be very strange and confusing.

On the other hand, if you treat 10ft reach the same as everyone else, then it becomes really easy to close in on someone with a reach weapon. Because if you come in at the diagonal, you're 15ft away so therefore out of reach, and then move one square and you're 5ft away and you haven't provoked an AoO because you didn't leave a threatened square. In first edition they tried some really convoluted things to solve that, but in the end the easiest was to do the same as in Pathfinder 2.

So the general rule is, to determine the range of your diagonal reach, calculate squares in the same way as for movement or spell/ranged attack range. But for 10ft reach attacks specifically, you can reach two diagonals.

Now, reaching 15ft would also allow you to reach only two diagonals, since it takes 15ft of movement to move two diagonal squares. So at that point the reach radius overlaps. On the horizontal/vertical line though, 15ft reach is three squares and 10ft is two squares as the normal result of using movement cost to determine reach.

So yeah, it's a bit of a kludge, but it's impossible to do everything nicely. Looking at it from a geometry point of view, you're trying to neatly fill a circle with equal-size squares, and if your circle is very small, you get ugly edges.

I'm not sure to understand the true rule here, since it does not fit with shroud explanation, if you admit that 25 feet reach is 4 squares diagonal (rules as written), a 25 reach would be able to hit a spell caster unable to respond with a 25 range spell (3 squares diagonal).

So what is the final rule to follow ?

15 feet is 2 square diagonal or 3 square diagonal ?

25 feet is 3 squares diagonal or 4 squares diagonal ?

Aratorin |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Ascalaphus wrote:If you gave 15ft reach three diagonals, then measuring a range (for example, how far can you shoot or cast a spell) would be different than measuring a reach. So then if you had 15ft of reach you would be able to attack someone who couldn't cast a 15ft range spell back at you. That would be very strange and confusing.

On the other hand, if you treat 10ft reach the same as everyone else, then it becomes really easy to close in on someone with a reach weapon. Because if you come in at the diagonal, you're 15ft away so therefore out of reach, and then move one square and you're 5ft away and you haven't provoked an AoO because you didn't leave a threatened square. In first edition they tried some really convoluted things to solve that, but in the end the easiest was to do the same as in Pathfinder 2.

So the general rule is, to determine the range of your diagonal reach, calculate squares in the same way as for movement or spell/ranged attack range. But for 10ft reach attacks specifically, you can reach two diagonals.

Now, reaching 15ft would also allow you to reach only two diagonals, since it takes 15ft of movement to move two diagonal squares. So at that point the reach radius overlaps. On the horizontal/vertical line though, 15ft reach is three squares and 10ft is two squares as the normal result of using movement cost to determine reach.

So yeah, it's a bit of a kludge, but it's impossible to do everything nicely. Looking at it from a geometry point of view, you're trying to neatly fill a circle with equal-size squares, and if your circle is very small, you get ugly edges.

I'm not sure to understand the true rule here, since it does not fit with shroud explanation, if you admit that 25 feet reach is 4 squares diagonal (rules as written), a 25 reach would be able to hit a spell caster unable to respond with a 25 range spell (3 squares diagonal).

So what is the final rule to follow ?

15 feet is 2 square diagonal or 3 square diagonal ?

25 feet is 3 squares...

The two statements have nothing to do with each other.

Unlike with measuring most distances, 10-foot reach can reach 2 squares diagonally.

Ok, so a creature with 10 Foot reach can reach 2 squares diagonally. That is an exception to the normal rules, and is a complete thought. We're done with that part.

Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally; 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 25-foot reach can reach 4, and so on.

This is a separate complete thought, and tells you to follow the normal rules for measuring distance for Reach greater than 10 feet. So, diagonal reach greater than 10 feet would be:

1 square = 5 feet

2 squares = 15 feet

3 squares = 20 feet

4 squares = 30 feet

5 squares = 35 feet

and so on.

The 25 foot reach for 4 squares in the book does seem incorrect.

Pingwii |

It's like normal distance, but the first 5ft are free and don't count for the 5-10-5-10 rule. So you have:

5ft: 1 diagonal (consider this free, now we start counting normally)

10ft: 2 diagonals

20ft: 3 diagonals

25ft: 4 diagonalsThis way, the wording is consistent.

No it's not, since with this explanation the 10 feet rule would not be an exception, and the second paragraph would not be needed since it creates by its wording a difference with the 10 feet exception.

Is there an official FAQ on the matter ?

Megistone |

Megistone wrote:No it's not, since with this explanation the 10 feet rule would not be an exception, and the second paragraph would not be needed since it creates by its wording a difference with the 10 feet exception.It's like normal distance, but the first 5ft are free and don't count for the 5-10-5-10 rule. So you have:

5ft: 1 diagonal (consider this free, now we start counting normally)

10ft: 2 diagonals

20ft: 3 diagonals

25ft: 4 diagonalsThis way, the wording is consistent.

The way I explained it is simpler, but you can get the exact same result by saying that you calculate distance normally, except that the second square (10ft) always costs 5, and doesn't count for the 5-10-5-10 rule.