Reach and Diagonals

[Raineh Daze]

So, whilst looking over the SRD, I saw this:

Note:[/size] [/size]Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of[/size] [/size]diagonal[/size] [/size]distance is measured as 15 feet.)[/size]

[/size]
[/size]Does this means that every other size of creature has overly-cut diagonal reach? And that their reach is kind of a mess to calculate?

[Ithamar]

Yeah it gets kind of confusing.  As I recall with reach for diagonals it works on a different ratio than movement, like 2-to-3 instead of 1-to-2.  I always end up referring back to the diagrams in the DMG, around page 310 or so.

[Garryl]

Everyone except for Small and Medium creatures threatens in a (near) circle, so yes, it can be a bit annoying to calculate if you're not used to it.

Yeah it gets kind of confusing.  As I recall with reach for diagonals it works on a different ratio than movement, like 2-to-3 instead of 1-to-2.  I always end up referring back to the diagrams in the DMG, around page 310 or so.

Movement, reach, areas, etc. are all 5 ft./1 square and 15 ft./2 diagonal squares.

[Raineh Daze]

This looks more like a circle than their actual circles.

Everyone except for Small and Medium creatures threatens in a (near) circle, so yes, it can be a bit annoying to calculate if you're not used to it.

I'm just not used to diagonally approaching things.

[Ithamar]

Movement, reach, areas, etc. are all 5 ft./1 square and 15 ft./2 diagonal squares.

That's what I meant by 1-to-2, I just didn't explain it at all I guess. 

[ketaro]

Its easiest to just count 1 to 1 between diagonals and straight lines when it comes to reach. It honestly doesn't make a big difference unless the next poster purposely comes up with an exact and specific situation where it would but then that is also not likely to be a likely situation and likely not a likely post.

[SorO_Lost]

Its easiest to just count 1 to 1 between diagonals and straight lines when it comes to reach. It honestly doesn't make a big difference unless the next poster purposely comes up with an exact and specific situation where it would but then that is also not likely to be a likely situation and likely not a likely post.

*cough*

When wondering if you'll hit the target you should use
( (your x - target's x)² + (your y - target's y)² ) * 5
to see if they are in range.

[snakeman830]

I'm pretty sure that rule about diagonal reach is there because 10ft reach is enough to reach the halfway point of a square 2 spaces out diagonally.  Instead of opening a new can of worms about what being able to reach half a space means, they just said you can strike anything in that space.

However, if you have 15 foot reach, I don 't think you can reach any further diagonally.

[Kethrian]

Yep, the illustrations in the back of the DMG show that 10' reach nets you 2 squares diagonally, regardless of source (large tall enemies get it naturally).  It's the only place where the distance is rounded up instead of down (that I know of), because you still measure reach as 1.5 squares diagonally, like movement and ranged attacks and the like.  I think they did this so that there was no cheesy angle where someone with 5' reach can enter a 10' threatened area and attack without provoking an AoO.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I remember the sh!tstorm this caused in 4e
where they do it as a box for 3 dimensions.
So the error rate in XY+Z is nearly exponential.

I can understand rules wise wanting to have as simple a solution
to this as possible ; considering some of the people who play the game,
are not going to enjoy any geometry math class extra credit homework.
  ... I wanna rolEplay you !@#$ 's.

Hex is more accurate in 2D, but to really get it right in 3D
you have to do offset levels like the Packing Oranges
problem that high maths guys get to puzzle over.
I have no idea at all how to do this one ...
(wait you mean if I had paid attention to Math Geometry instead of Female Geometry in the exact same class ... )

[Jackinthegreen]

2d hexagons turn into 3d rhombic dodecahedrons.  Besides being the densest packing for 3d objects, bees also cap their honeycombs with them.

But yeah, studying certain kinds of curves was rather interesting.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

(suffering a bit of densest un-packing)

Googles, goes to wiki.

Bhu needs to read that about the bees.
But yeah, that means bees navigate grid/hex mangling of spacial coordinates, better than anything


Aha.  So what I'm thinking is a Cuboctahedron.
The "other" thing I was thinking was: Inner Diameter Slope.