Reach and AoO's: Cross, or Square?

[Kae'Yoss]

It's always fun when people try to extrapolate abstracted rules into the real world, in order to show that those rules are unrealistic. Of course they are: they're abstractions to keep things simple and still allowing to copy actual procedures in the real, realtime world. But some tend to take that all to far. That's why I banned physics from my games!

 

[Ravellion]

One reason why I wouldn't use the 2 diagonals = 10 feet ruling:

B= Enemy Barbarian
M= Mage
F= Fighter
>=Movement
X=open

XXFXX>>>X
BXXX>XXXM
X>>>XXFXX

The Barabarian can now attack the mage without attacks of opportunities from the fighters. If you have outdoor combat without many obstructions at times, this will happen. The argument that both sides can do this, just doesn't make it okay to me.

Rav

 

[Kershek]

The Barabarian can now attack the mage without attacks of opportunities from the fighters. If you have outdoor combat without many obstructions at times, this will happen. The argument that both sides can do this, just doesn't make it okay to me.

Rav

I don't see what you're getting at here, unless you mean to say that the fighters have 10-foot reach weapons. If they do, then they still get attacks of opportunities on the route the barbarian chose. If they don't have 10-foot weapons, then they wouldn't get AoOs with or without the diagonal rule. Plus, the only difference in distance for the Barbiarian is 35 feet movement for flat squares and 40 feet movement for the diagonal rule.

 

[dcollins]

maybe i'm just really antagonistic today ... i mean more than usual :

Yes, you are definitely being antagonistic and rude. Your snide comments are entirely unwelcome and a drag on this thread. Perhaps you should examine them more closely in the future.