Pathfinder 1E Living Pathfinder

[perrinmiller]

I figure 10feet reach is 10 feet in all directions. That is a cube 5x5x5 squares. Why should it be less? in 2 dimensions the corners are not cut off diagonally?

 

[Walking Dad]

I'm with perrinmiller. To much simulationists thinking will only over-complicate and reduce the flow and fun of the game. And I play games to have fun.

 

[perrinmiller]

Since we are looking at this combat. What about trying to trip a flying creature?

I think it is a flat "no" since they are not standing with their weight supported on legs. Already, every time a flying creature is injured, they have to make a Fly skill check or lose altitude.

 

[Walking Dad]

'trip' also represents 'throws' in the basic d20 terminology. But flying creatures should not be more trip-able (or less) than swimming creatures.

 

[perrinmiller]

I could see that, if the person was not using a weapon. In this case Ausk is trying to trip a flying creature using his flail.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

I can see it if the flying creature has wings. I'd call it a grapple rather than a trip because that better represents the mechanical action, but in this case I'd also call the flail a 'grapple' weapon. It is a trip weapon because of its ability to entangle the legs of the foe. I think it's reasonable to allow it to entangle wings the same way.

Alternatively, you could give it the same basic mechanics as a Tanglefoot Bag, but use a regular attack roll rather than a ranged touch.

 

[perrinmiller]

I think you are putting properties on a weapon that do not exist. A flail hooks an ankle to take a leg out like a guisarme. It is not a grapple weapon.

You could make an argument for a whip, but again it is not grappling, it is wrapping around a weight bearing leg and pulling it out from under.

Neither weapon grants a grappled condition on a successful trip, so I don't think you can justify it entangling wings.

 

[Scott DeWar]

tiping the edge of the wing of an opponant's aircraft would cause a loss of control just as easily as the police tactic of bumping another cars rear quarter panel would cause it to lose control and crash.

wrapping the weighted chain ends of a flail would definately cause consternation to a flying creaters wings. Imagine bolos thrown at and wrapped around a bird in flight's wings.

as for the reach weapon, i feel that with her being 10 feet in the air the reach weapon would only have the blue dots of effect

 

[perrinmiller]

A flail is not bolos and a medium sized creature is no little bird. I don't think the chain is that long. It gets tripping and disarming because ankles and weapons have small diameters and are exposed. You cannot do such a maneuver with a guisarme and mechanically they are no different.

I think you are still trying to put grappling effects on a trip attack or assigning mechanical advantages to weapons that are not covered in the core rules.

The analogy of airplanes and cars is covered under Fly checks due to being damaged in flight. It not a very difficult DC check when the flier has high skill though.

10 feet reach in the horizontal plane is a 5x5 square on the grid for a medium sized creature. So how can you justify changing it to a different shape in the vertical plane? You cannot have it both ways, I don't think. You cut the corners off in the vertical, then you have to take them off in the horizontal which is clearly not in the rules.

 

[IronWolf]

Since we are looking at this combat. What about trying to trip a flying creature?

From the Trip section of the PFSRD:

Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.