Is There Any Definitive Documentation on Reach?

[Felon]

I constantly get into arguements with my fellow players about how reach extends around a creature. Essentially, I treat it as a square (or a rectangle if the creature is long), but everyone else wants to knock the corners off of the square to simulate reach in a more radial manner.

Things got pretty ugly this weekend as I was running the Banewarrens. The Ogre Mage floated 15' (3 vertical squares) up in the air and swatted down on a hapless paladin that had no way to retailiate with his longsword. The conviction of the other players was that the OM's reach shouldn't extend 10' below him as fully as it does on his own level. They think the area of reach should shrink as it gets farther beneath (thus making reach more sphere-like). As far as I know, in D&D reach in 2 dimensions is more-or-less a square and reach in three dimensions is more-or-less a cube.

The only documentation I ever recall seeing on reach was an old Dragon Magazine article on Attacks of Opportunity, which I can't find anymore. Does anyone know of any official source material on the subject of reach, with illustrated examples? Considering how common a problem reach is for players, it sure would make sense to have some clarification on the matter.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'd treat it the same way you treat movement. 15' reach is anywhere he creature could go by moving up to 15 feet.

I use the 5/10 method: the first diagonal in a round is 5 feet, the second is 10 feet, the third is 5 feet, etc. Using that method, the corners are cut off a bit. If you allow diagonal movement at no penalty, the thretened area should be square.

 

[dcollins]

The 5/10 rule that CRG mentions above has in fact been entered into the Official FAQ for reach considerations. The Sage's assertion is that indeed, 10 ft. reach does not extend 2 diagonal squares away.

See the Main FAQ, v. 10152002, p. 24, under (oddly) "Goods and Services":

When counting diagonals, the first (and all odd diagonal) is 5 feet and the second (and all even diagonal) is 10 feet. ou'd need a reach of 15 feet to attack 2 diagonals away (but only a 20-foot reach to attack 3 diagonals away). Likewise, if you move 3 diagonals, your total movement would be 20 feet.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The 5/10 rule that CRG mentions above has in fact been entered into the Official FAQ for reach considerations. The Sage's assertion is that indeed, 10 ft. reach does not extend 2 diagonal squares away.

For clarity's sake:

I'm not advocating one method over another. I just think that the method used for movement should also be for reach; it only makes sense.

 

[dcollins]

I'm not advocating one method over another. I just think that the method used for movement should also be for reach; it only makes sense.

And likewise here. Actually, the 5/10 rule for 10 ft. reach causes some problems I'm really unfond of. I'm fairly sure the second block on the FAQ p. 24 in question was in response to a critical email I wrote the Sage about his first entry on the subject.

 

[Felon]

I'd treat it the same way you treat movement. 15' reach is anywhere he creature could go by moving up to 15 feet.

I use the 5/10 method: the first diagonal in a round is 5 feet, the second is 10 feet, the third is 5 feet, etc. Using that method, the corners are cut off a bit. If you allow diagonal movement at no penalty, the thretened area should be square.

So you agree with my players. You'd treat a creature with 10' reach like this:

O X X X O
X X X X X
X X M X X
X X X X X
O X X X O

X = Reachable square
O = Unreachable square
M = Monster with 10' reach

My major objection here is that leaving the corners off allows an attacker coming at the monster diagnally to do so without consequence, while an attacker coming from a non-diagnal direction has to bear the brunt of an AoO. Likewise, once the attackers have moved in, the corner-wise attacker can move out of reach with a 5' step, while the other attacker has no way to step out of reach.

I think taking the corners off like that provides a rather unbalanced, unjustified exploit. There shouldn't be "sweet spot" points-of-entry if we're trying simulate radial reach. IMHO, any attempt to charge up next to that monster should provoke an attack of opportunity equally, regardless of what direction the attacker's coming from.

 

[Felon]

And likewise here. Actually, the 5/10 rule for 10 ft. reach causes some problems I'm really unfond of. I'm fairly sure the second block on the FAQ p. 24 in question was in response to a critical email I wrote the Sage about his first entry on the subject.

I'm looking at the Official D&D FAQ on the official D&D site now. p24 concerns equipment, goods, and services. Can you clarify which FAQ you're talking about?

 

[Stalker0]

I think taking the corners off like that provides a rather unbalanced, unjustified exploit. There shouldn't be "sweet-spot" points-of-entry if we're trying simulate radial reach. IMHO, any attempt to charge up next to that monster should provoke an attack of opportunity equally, regardless of what direction the attacker's coming from.

Don't worry Felon, your concers have also been addressed in the faq.

The sage ruled that since coming in from the diagnonals, the guy had to have moved within 10 ft of you at some point, that you do get an AOO if I guy moves in on you from the corners.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I think taking the corners off like that provides a rather unbalanced, unjustified exploit. There shouldn't be "sweet-spot" points-of-entry if we're trying simulate radial reach. IMHO, any attempt to charge up next to that monster should provoke an attack of opportunity equally, regardless of what direction the attacker's coming from.

Agreed.

And here's a solution: ask the player how much movement it took to get close to your monster. If the amount of movement is 5' or less, then no problem--there's no AoO. If the amount of movement is 10' or more, than guess what--the player has just proven that he moved within the monster's 10' reach.

PC: I move 30 feet and attack the monster.
DM: Okay, the monster uses his Reach to get an AoO on you.
PC: Uh, no, I moved my figure in this little diagonal pattern on the board, see?
DM: The monster has 10' reach, in all directions. How far away were you at the start of the turn?
PC: Uh, 30 feet.
DM: How far away are you now?
PC: I'm adjacent.
DM: Did you teleport there?
PC: No, I walked.
DM: [stares at pc]
PC: Uh, oh yeah. Uh, my AC is 17...
DM: Much better.

All this mucking about with specific "squares" makes D&D too much like chess, and less like a fantasy role-playing game. I've found that it's much more fun to just measure actual distances with a ruler, with the squares as a handy guideline--*not* specific spaces on some kind of board.

Or, alternatively, since the squares are arbitrary just pick the figures up, rotate the map 45 degrees to the right, and put the figures back down. All the diagonals are now straight columns, and all the columns are diagonals. Note how, on a featurless battlemat, this reorientation of the underlying battlemat doesn't change the positions of the figures at all. Diagonals are not magic, they're arbitrary--reach is reach, regardless of the angle of attack.

Sigh. Reach is a good idea, but a terrible rule as implemented.

-z

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

I would only add that the corners on AoE spells are clipped as well.