Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 474241" data-attributes="member: 8158">So you agree with my players. You'd treat a creature with 10' reach like this:O X X X OX X X X XX X M X XX X X X XO X X X OX = Reachable squareO = Unreachable squareM = Monster with 10' reachMy 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 &quot;sweet spot&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Felon, post: 474241, member: 8158"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification