Threaten in 2D or 3D?

[Krelios]

Well, just to be obnoxiously picky, if you're only fighting one opponent, you're always joined by a single flat plane--it just might not be horizontal with respect to gravity.

 

[Bastoche]

From the SRD:






Now as I read this there is no limitation on whether or not the 5 ft is in 2D or 3D. Hence it should be read as within 5 ft since adjacent can be in any direction.

Now all of the illustrations are in 2D , but that IMO has more to do with taking pictures and using battlemaps than with trying to coer all situations.

For the 3D argument to hold, it should be written cube and not square. A square always had, always is, always will be a purely 2D object.

Personnally, I think fighting 3D IRL is hard if at all possible (in terms of AoO). In face of absence of clear ruling from the RAW, I defer to the realism argument and forbid 3D threatning, unless you are a flying creature (and use to such technique). I could consider a feat allowing the threaten 3D.

 

[diaglo]

4D.

you threaten to take your ball and go home in the future if you don't get your way

 

[Infiniti2000]

Personnally, I think fighting 3D IRL is hard if at all possible (in terms of AoO). In face of absence of clear ruling from the RAW, I defer to the realism argument and forbid 3D threatning, unless you are a flying creature (and use to such technique). I could consider a feat allowing the threaten 3D.

It's also hard, nay impossible, to cast magic missile in real life, so do you disallow that, too? Your argument does not hold water. In D&D, however, magic missiles are possible. Flying/levitating is not only possible, but highly likely for everyone. Without a doubt, D&D character will be used to 3D combat.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Bastoche, how is:
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack.."
"..a creature can reach up a distance equal to its space plus its reach"
"Use the movement rules to apply to any sort of movement, not just when traveling across a flat surface"

not a clear ruling?

If you threaten a space to which you can melee attack to, and you can attack upwards the same distance you can attack forwards, then you must be able to threaten upwards as well.

Would the RAW be clearer if the use of 3D concepts were used throughout the rulings? only for the case of resolving 3D combat. The majority of combat occurs in 2D, so the rulings were written to be as clear as possible for 2D combat.

Would it have been nice for the line of "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack.." to specifically call out "including all three dimensions"? Sure. Perhaps that will be in the next version

Diaglo, Technically you are correct, if you consider the 4th dimension to be time....
Perhaps 8D ? but only if your name is Buckaroo Bonzai.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

For the 3D argument to hold, it should be written cube and not square. A square always had, always is, always will be a purely 2D object.

Not necessarily. If you notice, vertical intervals are always taken in 5' increments. So, you can't be (for example) 2 feet above another character. In that case, you would be on the same level, but with the higher ground advantage. If you're actually above the character (eg. flying), you snap into the next higher square so far as your position is concerned. So it's somewhat wrong to characterize the world as being composed of cubes, since there's no rules reference that gives position in terms of cubes (only spells work in cubes). We should, therefore, see position in horizontal and vertical as being composed of multiple flat planes of squares, each 5' above or below the next.

This leaves the question, can an attack be made from one plane to the next? The answer seems to be, yes, if the attack is made against an opponent within 5 feet (or more if you have reach). If this is true, then you can also threaten across these horizontal planes.

 

[irdeggman]

For the 3D argument to hold, it should be written cube and not square. A square always had, always is, always will be a purely 2D object.

Personnally, I think fighting 3D IRL is hard if at all possible (in terms of AoO). In face of absence of clear ruling from the RAW, I defer to the realism argument and forbid 3D threatning, unless you are a flying creature (and use to such technique). I could consider a feat allowing the threaten 3D.

Hmmm but the active text is:

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet.

Hence the 5 ft can be in any direction.

It is pretty obvious that you can make a melee attack on any opponent within 5 ft since that is exactly what it says.

 

[werk]

Miniatures are on the 30mm scale—a miniature figure of a six-foot-tall human is approximately 30mm tall. A square on the battle grid is 1 inch across, representing a 5-foot-by-5-foot area.

So a standard human (which the systems is based upon) is 6' tall, which is more than one square (cube). Does he threaten the second cube off the ground (which his head is in) or does he threaten the third cube (adjacent to occupied squares?)??

I'd say it's either an oversight or something ugly that was swept under the carpet.

 

[mvincent]

So a standard human (which the systems is based upon) is 6' tall, which is more than one square (cube). Does he threaten the second cube off the ground (which his head is in) or does he threaten the third cube (adjacent to occupied squares?)??

It's the first option. For simplicity, he 'occupies' a 5' cube during combat, and can attack into adjacent cubes. He could not attack something 10' off the ground without jumping or using a reach weapon.

This cube method mostly agrees with the vertical reach distances listed in the jump skill, but starts to break down for Gargantuan and Colossal creatures. I haven't heard of that becoming an issue yet.

 

[Bastoche]

So a standard human (which the systems is based upon) is 6' tall, which is more than one square (cube). Does he threaten the second cube off the ground (which his head is in) or does he threaten the third cube (adjacent to occupied squares?)??

I'd say it's either an oversight or something ugly that was swept under the carpet.

Thank god! I can't believe people actually took my post seriously.

Translation: It is not covered by RAW.

Since magic missiles aren't possible in real life but are possible in the D&D multiverse, I guess I could also play a character that can strike a groundhog through the ground without ever seeing it? Or someone who can rotate his head 360 degrees? Sheesh...