Ran into this interesting predicament a while back that I suddenly remembered for some reason:
In a PFS scenario, a bunch of jinkins try to swarm around a single PC for sneak attack. A player argued that they couldn’t flank since they were Tiny and thus had a reach of 0 feet (must be in the same square to attack), using this as a reference. I tried arguing that there wasn’t a “reach 0 ft” listed in their Strike, but for the sake of keeping things moving I chalked it up to the author not fully understanding the rules when writing tactics.
Kept digging and found that anything (excluding Tiny for a bit) explicitly states its reach if greater than 5 ft—this is most apparent with bone devils*, which have three separate melee Strikes with different reaches. So I’m like “Okay, so if no reach trait is given then it’s 5 ft, unless the creature’s Tiny, then it’s 0 ft. Weird flex, but alright.” But then the freaking demilich comes in with its jaws Strike explicitly having a reach of 0 ft that throws everything out the window!
So what am I to assume at this point? What’s the melee reach of a Tiny creature if it’s not given? If it’s 0 ft then why does a Jinkin have sneak attack if it can’t flank, and how are they going to present tooth fairies in that case, since they normally have a 5 ft reach with their pliers? If it’s 5 ft, then it brings up weirder implications for that size table and for things like bloodseekers. I’m just...I’m so confused.
*
Core Rulebook Page 473 table 9-1 Tiny creatures have a reach of 0ft.
Multiple Tiny creatures can occupy the same square. At least four can fit in a single square, though the GM might determine that even more can fit. Tiny creatures can occupy a space occupied by a larger creature as well, and if their reach is 0 feet, they must do so in order to attack.
So unless a particular stat block or attack lists a different reach it is 0ft.
And sneak attack keys off flat-footed, not flanked. While flanking is a common way of generating flat-footed, its not the only way, so size tiny creatures just need to look for alternate means.
Core Rulebook Page 473 table 9-1 Tiny creatures have a reach of 0ft.
Multiple Tiny creatures can occupy the same square. At least four can fit in a single square, though the GM might determine that even more can fit. Tiny creatures can occupy a space occupied by a larger creature as well, and if their reach is 0 feet, they must do so in order to attack.So unless a particular stat block or attack lists a different reach it is 0ft.
I understand where you’re going, I really do, but Table 9-1 (and the text around it) doesn’t actually say what you think it does. It doesn’t say “this is the reach of a creature of this size unless stated otherwise,” it does say that what’s listed on the table is what’s typical for creatures of that size, i.e. Huge (tall) creatures typically have a 15 ft reach, but Shoggoth have a 30 ft, which is different from the norm. But even in those cases, statblocks explicitly state what a creature’s reach with a melee Strike is, even if it’s within the norm for this table (random searching finds the guthallath, which is Gargantuan, but its Strikes still say they have a reach of 20 ft.). Additionally, what you quoted says that Tiny creatures must occupy the space of their target to attack if their reach is 0 ft. Thus, if they don’t have a 0 ft reach, then they’re fine. The problem is that, by the RAW, the ONLY creature (that I’ve thus far found) that that quoted sentence applies to is the demilich, because it’s the only one (that I’ve found) that explicitly says that its reach with its Strike is 0 ft.
Honestly not trying to be confrontational, I'm just trying to explain why I'm so hung up on this relatively-minor thing.
|
The table on page 474 clearly shows Tiny creatures have a reach of 0 feet.
I mean, I suppose anything is left to interpretation. I argue that all the time. But I would find it *difficult* to argue anything else, based on the table.
That can obviously be modified by reach weapons, but, "if their reach is 0 feet", which is the default, then, "they must [occupy a space occupied by a larger creature] in order to attack".
ADDENDUM: This is also a good example of using outside information to come to a conclusion. Since you found the text to be unclear, you did your due diligence and researched what the reach of various creatures was, and came up with *one* instance of a creature with 0 ft Reach, and it wasn't even Tiny.
To me, that would reinforce the idea that the Table was correct, but again, perhaps not everyone would see that evidence as such.
|
|
Also, I don't see that Medium-sized creatures list their Reach of 5 feet in their statblocks (see Wolf as an example), so if you believe Tiny-sized creatures must have a default Reach of 5 feet, what would you assign to Medium creatures if not using the table?
and came up with *one* instance of a creature with 0 ft Reach, and it wasn't even Tiny.
Demilich...floating bejeweled skull...that's...a Tiny...creature...I think you missed something.
Also, I don't see that Medium-sized creatures list their Reach of 5 feet in their statblocks (see Wolf as an example), so if you believe Tiny-sized creatures must have a default Reach of 5 feet, what would you assign to Medium creatures if not using the table?
I'm...confused about what you're saying here so I'll reiterate something: from what I've seen, a (at the very least Small or larger) creature's reach is 5 ft unless it is specifically noted otherwise in the creature's statblock; that is the norm that I've observed. The confusion arises with Tiny creatures, who do not state an explicit reach for their Strikes in all but the one (that I've found) statblock of the demilich's. It's just a deviation from the norm that has gotten my brain in a jumble.
More than anything I’m arguing that the statblocks for Tiny creatures are not super intuitive with their reach. I agree with you guys wholeheartedly that that’s the RAI. My argument is that, from the evidence that I’ve thus far collected, by the RAW I’m technically correct that the demilich is the only Tiny creature with a 0 ft reach. I’m more playing devil’s advocate to try and find a RAW answer for what is clearly the RAI.
Returning to devil’s advocate: the table itself shows that Tiny creatures should have a 0 ft reach, but only the demilich says that in its own statblock.
I think what KingTreyIII is saying is that the Bestiary entries seem to follow a separate method for displaying reach:
Default = 5' unless otherwise specified (no matter the creature's size)
While Nefreet (et al) think
Default = CRB chart according to size unless otherwise specified
This was part of a thread some months back which didn't reach a consensus because there's inconsistency in the Bestiary's protocols.
Some creatures don't mention reach when they should by 1st method.*
Some creatures mention reach when they shouldn't by 2nd method.**
*A quick scan brings up the Sarglagon, an upright Large creature w/ tentacle arms and no reach listed. Shouldn't that be 10' reach (especially w/ tentacle arms)? (I recall better examples, like w/ a Huge monster, but perhaps I'm misremembering?)
** Numerous examples, i.e. dinosaurs & giants, list reach when they're just getting the default CRB reach anyway. Why?
-------------
I lean toward KingTreyIII's interpretation simply because the Bestiary doesn't seem to ever list 5' as a reach and I'm having a hard time finding those counterexamples from last time. Then again, maybe the developers never wanted to reduce reach on any of the big'uns?
I think the Osyluth (if still considered upright like before, which from the picture maybe it isn't!) raises questions.
I think what KingTreyIII is saying is that the Bestiary entries seem to follow a separate method for displaying reach:
Default = 5' unless otherwise specified (no matter the creature's size)While Nefreet (et al) think
Default = CRB chart according to size unless otherwise specifiedThis was part of a thread some months back which didn't reach a consensus because there's inconsistency in the Bestiary's protocols.
Some creatures don't mention reach when they should by 1st method.*
Some creatures mention reach when they shouldn't by 2nd method.***A quick scan brings up the Sarglagon, an upright Large creature w/ tentacle arms and no reach listed. Shouldn't that be 10' reach (especially w/ tentacle arms)? (I recall better examples, like w/ a Huge monster, but perhaps I'm misremembering?)
** Numerous examples, i.e. dinosaurs & giants, list reach when they're just getting the default CRB reach anyway. Why?
A person more eloquent than I to rephrase my words! Thank you! Yes, this is what I’m trying to convey to raise as a point of order.
EDIT: Also, I agree that the bone devil's picture is confusing, but I'm pretty sure it's less that the devil is moving like a quadruped and more that it's hunched over, similar to a regular person going to pick up a box on the ground while trying to keep their back straight (which is how it's supposed to be done to avoid straining your back, by the way).
|
|
I think what KingTreyIII is saying is that the Bestiary entries seem to follow a separate method for displaying reach:
Default = 5' unless otherwise specified (no matter the creature's size)While Nefreet (et al) think
Default = CRB chart according to size unless otherwise specified
One of these methods is explicitly listed, while the other is a fabrication of the mind.
I rule that a medium-sized wolf has a reach of 5 feet because that's what the chart lists, not because it's "from what I've seen" during play.
Same for tiny-sized creatures and 0 feet.
I think what KingTreyIII is saying is that the Bestiary entries seem to follow a separate method for displaying reach:
Default = 5' unless otherwise specified (no matter the creature's size)While Nefreet (et al) think
Default = CRB chart according to size unless otherwise specifiedOne of these methods is explicitly listed, while the other is a fabrication of the mind.
I rule that a medium-sized wolf has a reach of 5 feet because that's what the chart lists, not because it's "from what I've seen" during play.
Same for tiny-sized creatures and 0 feet.
The CRB gives guidelines that have many exceptions in the Bestiary. And the Bestiary lists Reach in tons of non-exceptional cases. If the CRB is supposed to be the norm, wouldn't the Bestiary only list exceptions? Yet it never lists (AFAICT) attacks w/ 5' reach, exceptional or not.
The other interpretation isn't necessarily a fabrication of the mind, it could also be a conclusion based on analysis of the Bestiary. At the very least the Bestiary would have to clarify when a creature is squat or upright (i.e. the Sarglagon) so then the GM knows how to apply the CRB's guidelines.
Not sure how a medium-sized wolf makes anybody's point. Both methods would lead one to accept they have 5' reach with their bite.
Part of me suspects Paizo lacked rigorous guidelines on formatting, perhaps even with different developers using either method. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I do agree that Paizo had the perfect opportunity with their new Traits system to include "Long" and "Tall" in Creature statblocks. I thought after having it come up *constantly* in PF1 would have been enough reason to address it now.
But the question about the Wolf's reach is incredibly important. It must have an answer, right?
Is it zero feet? It must be, because it doesn't list a reach.
Is it five feet? It must be, because it doesn't list a reach.
Is it ten feet? It must be, because it doesn't list a reach.
Or is it 5 feet, because that's what the chart whose sole purpose is to tell us a creature's default reach lists it as?
Nefreet,
Nobody is saying a wolf has a reach of 0', nor that a wolf has a reach of 10', so those are strawman positions (at best).
One side is saying it's 5' because it's 5' for medium creatures and the Bestiary didn't override that.
The other side is saying it's 5' because the Bestiary doesn't reference using the CRB's guidelines and appears to use a default of 5' for when it doesn't list a specific number.
So both methods converge re: the wolf.
We'd need examples where the answers diverge, yet we can tell which is correct by a third method.
Perusing the Bestiary for other reasons, I came across an example this afternoon. It starts with understanding the Breach ability, which lets a creature jump out of the water distance X. Its attack then can reach to X + its Reach. Examples that follow this pattern are the Megalodon & Azure Worm, which have specifically listed Reaches.
Okay, so now let's look at the Great White Shark, which does not have a specifically listed Reach.
It's Huge, so by the CRB, it'd have 10' Reach w/ its bite.
The Bestiary doesn't list a 10' Reach, so by the other side's method, the GWS would have instead a 5' Reach due to it being unlisted.
Okay, so we have a discrepancy, and the GWS has the Breach ability so we have a way to double check.
Looking at its Breach ability, (leap 25', attack up to 30') we can deduce the GWS only bites w/ a 5' Reach.
That supports that the Bestiary uses 5' as a default for unlisted Reach distances.
And there's still the point made before that the Bestiary lists tons of Reach distances that it wouldn't need to if Paizo intended us to reference the CRB values as default, i.e. Giants. The Bestiaries seem to note all Reaches that aren't 5', and none that are 5' (that just being the default). The absence of ever mentioning 5' for Reach seems to support the other side's position.
Unfortunately, given all the strange physiology and shapes plus the possibility of typos or left-hand/right-hand development, it's hard to prove either side conclusively. Yet I'm swayed toward the "unlisted=5'" POV.
Neat analogy, yet I don't find it convincing because it bends the connections differently than I see them. To me, it's more like there are two practitioners, a nutritionist and a diet specialist, and they work together, supposedly in sync. When listening to the diet specialist, do you prioritize what the nutritionist said? And what do you do when you find they aren't in sync? What if the diet specialist's advice is most coherent when taken on its own and not blended with the nutritionist's formatting?
The CRB has guidelines for Reach re: creature sizes & shapes.
Does the Bestiary reference or say to reference those guidelines when determining the Reach of a creature whose Reach is unlisted?
That'd settle things for me if it did.
Yet the Bestiary, if we're supposed to follow the CRB's guidelines, has a lot of excess data it hadn't needed to include. And it has anomalies like the Great White Shark example above.
As far as I can tell, the anomalies go away if one assumes that the Bestiary defaults to 5' Reach for unlisted Reach values.
And again, AFAICT, there's no counter-example of an anomaly that arises (like 5' Reach ever being listed) with that assumption.
Now if you go to the "Reading Creature Statistics" section of the Bestiary, it seems to lack a place for Reach. Big oversight? Maybe. Heck, definitely if one's supposed to go to another book for more info!
Or maybe Reach falls under traits within the Melee subsection. If so, there'd never be a reason to list a 5' Reach (which is what we observe in practice) since that's not special. That's the norm for all attacks, much like "non-Reach" isn't a weapon trait. And if not referencing another book then all other Reach distances would have to be listed (which is what we observe in practice) since they are different from the 5' norm for attacks.
So do Tiny creatures have 5' Reach?
Not usually, but apparently other than the Demilich, the Tiny creatures worth fighting do, at least with their listed attacks. (Many (most?) of the current ones had 5' reach w/ a single attack in PF1, and I'd still say they have 0' Reach for unlisted attacks like from maneuvers.)
|
|
Another analogy could be this:
The Bestiary does not list the damage for a Gnome Flickmace. Anywhere. GM ambushes the party with a troupe of warrior gnomes wielding Flickmaces, and rolling 1d6 for damage.
PCs: "I think you're rolling the damage wrong. It's 1d8 in the Core Rulebook."
GM: "I assume it's the same as in Pathfinder 1. I shouldn't have to reference the Core Rulebook. And since everyone does it this way, this is how I'm doing it."
One of these arguments is a fabrication of the mind. The other is listed on a table in the Core Rulebook.
So two things I’ve found just barely—one in favor of my/Castilliano’s argument (sorta), and one against it:
The first: ”Natural attacks with this trait can be used to attack creatures up to the listed distance away instead of only adjacent creatures.”
However, I cannot seem to find that particular phrasing anywhere other than AoN, so probably should be read with a grain of salt.
The second: a single creature—the gorilla—has “reach 5 feet” attached to one of its Strikes.
|
|
Sometimes I feel like I'm being punked on these forums.
After KingTreyIII's most recent comment, I believe we're just being trolled.
They link to a section on archivesofnethys, saying they can't find the quoted section anywhere else, and yet it's right on the page in the CRB that archivesofnethys tells us it is.
They didn't answer me earlier when I asked whether they owned the CRB, but I now think I know the answer to that.
I'm going to hide this thread now. I suggest everyone else do so as well.
...Nefreet,
Nobody is saying a wolf has a reach of 0', nor that a wolf has a reach of 10', so those are strawman positions (at best).One side is saying it's 5' because it's 5' for medium creatures and the Bestiary didn't override that.
The other side is saying it's 5' because the Bestiary doesn't reference using the CRB's guidelines and appears to use a default of 5' for when it doesn't list a specific number.
So both methods converge re: the wolf.
We'd need examples where the answers diverge, yet we can tell which is correct by a third method.Perusing the Bestiary for other reasons, I came across an example this afternoon. It starts with understanding the Breach ability, which lets a creature jump out of the water distance X. Its attack then can reach to X + its Reach. Examples that follow this pattern are the Megalodon & Azure Worm, which have specifically listed Reaches.
Okay, so now let's look at the Great White Shark, which does not have a specifically listed Reach.
It's Huge, so by the CRB, it'd have 10' Reach w/ its bite.
The Bestiary doesn't list a 10' Reach, so by the other side's method, the GWS would have instead a 5' Reach due to it being unlisted.
Okay, so we have a discrepancy, and the GWS has the Breach ability so we have a way to double check.
Looking at its Breach ability, (leap 25', attack up to 30') we can deduce the GWS only bites w/ a 5' Reach.
That supports that the Bestiary uses 5' as a default for unlisted Reach distances.And there's still the point made before that the Bestiary lists tons of Reach distances that it wouldn't need to if Paizo intended us to reference the CRB values as default, i.e. Giants. The Bestiaries seem to note all Reaches that aren't 5', and none that are 5' (that just being the default). The absence of ever mentioning 5' for Reach seems to support the other side's position.
Unfortunately, given all the strange physiology and shapes plus the possibility of typos or left-hand/right-hand
You have a reading comprehension error where you're mixing the two sides. For example:
"The place where you say that defines medium reach as 5ft is exactly the same place that says that tiny reach is 0ft.You can't possibly say that the table is only to be used for medium sized and not for the rest."
Yes, the side referencing the chart agrees with you about Tiny Reach. They are not at odds with themselves on this as you're implying.
Nobody has stated that the chart is only for medium sized.
One side has used the chart consistently.
The other side believes the Bestiary doesn't expect players to reference the CRB chart and only notes Reach when it isn't 5', i.e. the Demilich.
(But see new counterexample below.)
-----
Nobody's being punked.
It's just that if the Bestiary uses the method of only referencing the traits of attacks that are abnormal, then it'd only list the Reach of attacks that weren't 5'. And the Bestiaries seemed 100% that way until we saw the example of a creature whose 5' Reach is listed as an attack trait, the Gorilla w/ its jaws. So far that's the only evidence in the Bestiary for the "CRB guidelines are primary" crowd. The example was provided by somebody with an opposing view, so obviously they're actually trying to have a collaborative discussion, not punking.
And the opposing evidence remains, anomalies that better fit with the "Bestiary defaults to 5'" viewpoint, i.e. the Breach ability of the Great White Shark. And with the CRB view, the issue arises of determining which creatures are tall or squat. An unlisted Reach has no meaning when one has an indeterminable body type to plug into the chart. The other side would default to 5' and call it good.
Which is all to say, I don't think the issue clearly falls on either side. Paizo should share its methodology in presentation, whether unlisted defaults to the "normal" from the CRB creature size chart or to the "normal" that attacks are 5' unless a trait says otherwise.
Or Paizo could simply add Reach to every attack, which I doubt would effect the line count much yet would solve all these issues.
Cheers
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me you have general rules...the chart specified the reach by size and specific rules in the monster listing. You apply the general rule unless otherwise overridden by a specific rule.
The general rule for reach for a tiny creature is 0. Seems simply enough to me...I could not find any text that states default reach is 5 feet any where, so if no reach is listed you use the table provided.
Sigh
For the record, yes, I do own the Core—it is a book I have read cover-to-cover. And when I found the “Natural attacks with this trait can be used to attack creatures up to the listed distance away instead of only adjacent creatures.” quote, I checked the corresponding page in the Core that AoN provided, which failed to have the quote that I was referencing, so I searched the entirety of the Core and the Bestiary for that exact quote and found nothing, hence me saying that I could not find that particular quote anywhere but AoN, and since AoN is the official PRD it has a type of authority on this stuff, but it still isn’t a truly official rules source, so I said to take it with a grain of salt.
I’m not trolling, I’m merely trying to present facts I’ve discovered and make my case while avoiding the people whose entire argument seems to be centered around making myself out to be a fool who doesn’t know what he’s talking about rather than an equal who might have a point, since attempting to “poke the bear” in those circumstances tends to lead to more situations that leave me very uncomfortable (at least from my experience).
Shroudb: "my issue is WHY you think it's "because medium creatures have 5ft" without referencing it in the bestiary if the actual rules about said 5ft are in the same place as the 0ft reach for the tiny creatures.
the bolded part was exactly where you pointed out that "it's natural for medium creatures" but that natural part, the rules for it, are in the same exact spot as the "it's natural for tiny to have 0ft"
in sort, the whole argument "because medium have 5ft reach" is EXACTLY the same as "because tiny has 0ft reach" "
You're coming at the issue from a different direction, using a different foundation than the other side hence the misunderstanding. One doesn't have to go to the chart of find the normal attack range of a medium (or small) creature. That's covered in the combat & weapons sections already.
(And I don't think of the size chart as a prescriptive rule, rather as descriptive norm.)
If one looks at the Bestiary's section on Reading Creature Statistics, it lacks any reference to the CRB chart or the reader needing to go there to check unlisted Reach values. That'd be a significant oversight if the reader was meant to do so.
What the section does do, under Melee, is say it will list all of each attack's traits (which as Elfteiroh noted, suits PF2's design philosophy). One of those traits would be Reach.
What's the normal reach of a weapon or attack? 5', adjacent.
That's the general rule of attacks in the CRB. To have other than that is worth noting, therefore the Bestiary notes it. This is seemingly 100% of the time (which it would need to do much, much less often if the chart were assumed to be referenced.)
Example anomaly: The Great White Shark w/ its unlisted reach on its jaws attack. It's huge and squat, so by the chart it'd have 10' reach. And by the "unlisted means 5'" view, it's 5'. From that data, there's no objective way to tell, so let's dive deeper. (Oh, hadn't meant for that ocean reference.)
By the Breach ability, if one were to go by every other example of the Breach ability, the GWS only has a 5' reach. Huh.
Referencing the Megalodon, essentially the same creature one size larger, it only has a 10' reach. So the GWS having 5' matches that pattern too. Huh.
In fact, unlisted=5' makes the whole Bestiary more coherent (IMO).
Again, not coming from that size chart, seeing that as more for the design side than the "future stats shall all reflect this" side. The view comes rather from combat & weapons, where Reach is a trait that'd be worth mentioning. And as the Bestiary says it will list traits for attacks, it does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless stated otherwise a tiny creature has a reach of 0 feet. This is not even controversial. It is explicitly stated in the CRB and has been the 'law of the land' since at least 3.0 D&D. PF2e still derives it's pedigree and the majority of it's foundational rules from 3.x D&D.
1.) CRB explicitly states that tiny creatures have a reach of 0 feet unless otherwise stated.
2.) Tiny creatures have had a reach of 0 feet unless otherwise stated for at least 20 years.