Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pres_man 07-12-06, 08:10 PM	When you read the following definition. adjacent: In a square that shares a border or a corner with a designated square. Each square is adjacent to eight other squares on the board. Now does this imply that only someone who is entirely in a square that shares a border or corner with a designated square is adjacent? Thus it is impossible for anything larger than medium to be considered adjacent. Or is it possible with this definition, to be in a square sharing a border or corner, but also in other squares that do not, and still be considered adjacent? Such as a medium character on a mount and a medium character on the ground?
Some Like It Hot 07-12-06, 08:19 PM	Your second interpretation is correct. -SLIH
Guy Humual 07-12-06, 08:59 PM	It's the second one. If you're trying to figure out if you're adjacent to someone/something see if the square (or squares) you occupy share any borders or corners with any of the squares the target occupies. Obviously this term (as it's written) becomes useless if you’re not using a map with a grid.
pres_man 07-12-06, 09:14 PM	Since reach weapons can't hit anything adjacent but can hit something 10' away, what happens if the target is both adjacent and 10' away? If what you say about the second being right, is correct?
Rabscuttle 07-12-06, 09:20 PM	We use a hex grid to avoid this problem and the wierd diagonal movement that results from using a square grid.
pres_man 07-12-06, 09:27 PM	We use a hex grid to avoid this problem and the wierd diagonal movement that results from using a square grid. Huh? The question isn't about movement, diagonal or not. It is related to the following situation: HHL HH* L=Longspear wielder H=Guy on horse The guy on the horse appears to both adjacent to the longspear wielder (can't attack adjacent targets), but also 10' away (can attack 10' away targets). So can the longspear wielder attack the guy on the horse? (I'm sure a similiar situation could be constructed with hexs, how does a large creature get represented with hexs?)
Ogmug 07-12-06, 09:40 PM	I would have to say yes, the rider and horse can be attacked. I cite spell targetting for this. If even one square of large creature is in an area of effect, the whole creature is considered in the area of effect. If even one square of the creature can be reached, then the entire creature is considered threatened. consider the same if the rider was 5' away. the long spear wielder would still only be able to hit 1 square.
Rabscuttle 07-12-06, 09:54 PM	On a hex grid the horse is takes up two hexes and the rider is considered to be in the front hex. If the front hex of the horse is adjacent, the rider is adjacent and you can't attack unless your weapon can strike an adjacent opponent. http://www.incompetech.com/Images/graph/hex.gif Hexes get rid of the adjacent on a corner problem.
Guy Humual 07-12-06, 09:55 PM	Since reach weapons can't hit anything adjacent but can hit something 10' away, what happens if the target is both adjacent and 10' away? If what you say about the second being right, is correct? I thought there would be a second part to this question. :D If the target is adjacent then it doesn't matter where the rest of the body is. You can't use reach weapons against something that's adjacent (with the exception of the spiked chain).
pres_man 07-12-06, 09:56 PM	On a hex grid the horse is takes up two hexes and the rider is considered to be in the front hex. Ah, so it is basically not updated from 3rd edition. Thanks. Is that standard for hex play or is this just how your group does it?
Rabscuttle 07-12-06, 09:59 PM	It's just how are group does it.
Leilond 07-13-06, 04:26 AM	Since reach weapons can't hit anything adjacent but can hit something 10' away, what happens if the target is both adjacent and 10' away? If what you say about the second being right, is correct? To use a reach weapon you need TWO prerequisite 1) Opponent must be within 10' 2) Opponent cannot be adjacent BOTH rules must be followed. An ogre adjacent to you cannot be attacked with a reach weapon because he don't follow the rule number 2
Aufenshauft 07-13-06, 09:03 AM	this entirely depends on which version of the game you are using. 3.0 A creature and it's rider are both shown on the battle grid with their same sizes. In the case of a horse, it is two hexes or squares long and one wide, with the rider in only one of the squares. Therefore, you can't hit the rider when in front of a horse and a normal weapon, but you can hit the horse. This is why lances are reach weapons, so the rider can target people in front of the horse. 3.5 A rider is in all hexes that the mount is in. Also, it changed things so that horses are large and therefore take up 4 hex/squares. They can fit into a 5' passage, but they are considered to be squeezing (new 3.5 rule), which gives them movement and combat penalties. In this system, you can hit the rider all the time, but that lance becomes more dangerous as it can reach out beyond the horse's head. Irontically, the side-by-side charge is more spread out by the rules, or you have everyone taking a -2 penalty to attacks because they are technically squeezing for a 5' frontage. In both cases, if only one square/hex shares a common border, then you are adjacent. 3.0 just had a wierd loophole to the rule, which killed an awful lot of horses. It's all in the details.
henebry 07-13-06, 09:35 AM	Huh? The question isn't about movement, diagonal or not. It is related to the following situation: HHL HH* L=Longspear wielder H=Guy on horse The guy on the horse appears to both adjacent to the longspear wielder (can't attack adjacent targets), but also 10' away (can attack 10' away targets). So can the longspear wielder attack the guy on the horse? (I'm sure a similiar situation could be constructed with hexs, how does a large creature get represented with hexs?) You have to be using pretty twisted logic to conclude that this horse is anything but adjacent. The horse's left side isn't adjacent, but there's obviously no way for a longspear wielder to attack around to the horse's left side. The horse's right side (both squares facing the spearman) are plainly adjacent. But can't the spearman simply take a 5' step backward (to the right) and attack from there?
Sinaz 07-13-06, 07:52 PM	You know, as a DM, you are free to make any interpretation you want. I am a DM, and if I were to play completely by RAW, I would consider a Large or larger creature ocupying an adjacent square to be adjacent, and immune to reach. HOWEVER! I am a chronic ad hoccer. In such a case where a Medium person were standing in a square diagonally adjacent to a horse, I would rule that the situation grants a special condition where the horse's rump would be threatened, only because the horse is slightly askew of the person, and it's rump unobstructed from the length of the spear. Similarly, I would ad hoc that a rider on a large horse is shifted vertically from a person on foot enough that being adjacent is threatened by a reach weapon (afterall, weapons designed to attack mounted soldiers are always long.) And lastly, I have also been known to allow players and enemies both to choke up on a reach weapon to temporarily turn it into an improvised melee weapon with appropriate penalties. In the end, what I'm trying to say is that you should adjudicate the situation however you feel it best fits the game.
Ogmug 07-13-06, 07:55 PM	You have to be using pretty twisted logic to conclude that this horse is anything but adjacent. The horse's left side isn't adjacent, but there's obviously no way for a longspear wielder to attack around to the horse's left side. The horse's right side (both squares facing the spearman) are plainly adjacent. But can't the spearman simply take a 5' step backward (to the right) and attack from there? unless the longspear wielder is on higher ground perhaps..../shrug
Ankalagon 07-14-06, 09:27 AM	If it helps, when on the diagonal I allow both reach and adjacent because potentially both are true and it saved all the game drowning discussion. Technically the diagonal is about 7.5ft but I do allow 5ft step to the diagonal but when moving, two squares on the diagonal would be 15ft. I think as long as what you do is consistent and can be reasonably justified then whatever is OK. Hex is better but we have decades old dungeon floor plans that I just don't wanna part with.
olshanski_home 07-14-06, 11:39 AM	when a rider is mounted, he shares his space with the mount. Effectively, a medium creature on a large mount has a space 10'. Anywhere the mount can be attacked, the rider can as well. The only time I've had a problem with the "adjacent" rules is when you attempt a coup-de-grace with a reach weapon. For purposes of coup-de-grace, I consider any threatened space to be "adjacent". That is the only place in which adjacent isn't actually adjacent in my rules.
Mairenn 07-14-06, 12:58 PM	as far as reach weapons and large creatures, I try to figure out how it would work in real life, and THEN I look at the rules. reach weapons and adjacent squares.....longspears and horses....first, it does depend on the angles. if I'm standing directly in front of a horse, I'm unlikely to hit the horse OR the rider, even though the rider may technically be more than 5 feet away from me, depending on the size of the horse, because the horse's head is in the way. I can still try, and probably will, depending on what my other options are! I can shift my grip to use it as a shorter weapon, is that what "choking up" means? And if the horse has been moving forward, I can set one end of my reach weapon on the ground, aim it at him, and wait! even if he turns at the last minute he is liable to run some part of him on to the weapon. If I'm 5 feet away to one side, I CAN get the rider with a 10 foot pole, because he is ALSO 5 feet UP. it's just harder at that angle. As above, if the horse is at an angle to me, one end of him is another hex further away. especially his back legs, which will bring him down if I use my reach weapon to sweep. bear in mind that reach weapons - claymores and longspears especially - were historically used PRECISELY for stopping horses, and getting riders off horses. it's just better to be 8.5 feet away when you start your swing:) With the rider off the horse, i can then use my reach weapon on him by shifting my grip. assuming he has fallen closer to me than the 10 feet! with a polearm this is easier, because I can use it to "stomp" or stab. with a really long blade it's much harder, because you can't really hold the blade while you hit him with the hilt. I suppose you could drop it on him and then step on it....better you should be backing up while he's falling. If I am dealing with anything more than medium height, horse and rider or whatever else, I consider the vertical. So a 10 foot tall beast can be got in the head, although it's much, much harder to roll. A 15 foot tall beast can be hit in the trunk. etc, etc. You also have to take into account that although the END of my weapon is 10 feet away, I may be able to sweep through the adjacent squares with the middle of it! I will never tell my players they can't do something. But I will keep adding roll penalties until it's approaching 0 possibility. I don't tell them that, either, but when they keep reliably not hitting something, they learn over time:)
olshanski_home 07-14-06, 01:59 PM	as far as reach weapons and large creatures, I try to figure out how it would work in real life, and THEN I look at the rules. reach weapons and adjacent squares.....longspears and horses....first, it does depend on the angles. if I'm standing directly in front of a horse, I'm unlikely to hit the horse OR the rider, even though the rider may technically be more than 5 feet away from me, depending on the size of the horse, because the horse's head is in the way. Except that in D&D, unlike real life, there is no "front" or "back" or "side". There is no facing in D&D. If you are located adjacent to the horse, you could be on the side, you could be on the front. The direction the miniature is facing means nothing.