So one of my players built a control fighter with a reach weapon meant to help control how enemies moved around combat. When he spoke with me about it, I pretty much got what he was trying to do. However, in game, we ran into a little disagreement that I kinda don't know how to rule on.
So using the gird example below, We pretty much agreed that red was out of reach, however it's the yellow spaces we debated on. I personally ruled that they would be at disadvantage but he did make a point that square grids do complicate this and that technically those would be within 10 feet of him as well.
My question was for those who use a grid system how do you handle reach weapons?
If you care about about precision but still want to play with a grid, use the optional rule in the DMG for diagonals. When measuring distances, every odd diagonal (the 1st, 3rd, etc) counts as 5 feet while the even diagonals count as 10. It's close enough for game purposes. Using that rule, the yellow squares are within reach.
No need to use something as heavy-handed as disadvantage for this. Don't forget that any creatures in the way will provide half cover.
I prefer the 5-10 diagonal rules where the first diagonal is 5 ft, the second diagonal is 10, then 5, then 10, etc (which would put yellow squares at 10 ft and red squares at 15 ft).
The 5e rules as written just has diagonal be 5 ft (making red squares 10 ft away), though technically playing on a grid is a rule variant.
In the base grid variant, all the squares are within 10' of the center.
If you are going to apply the second diagonal = 10' variant rule to reach, will you also apply it to movement? Movement is far more common than reach weapon applications and it seems inconsistent to try to use it in one case and not the other. This will make movement more difficult to calculate and keep track of and may lead to some edge cases where characters move farther by avoiding diagonals (or at least only having one in their movement).
The most commonly used approach (at least in the games I have played) is that all squares on the grid are 5' whether on a line or diagonal in which cases all squares in your diagram are within the 10' reach of the polearm (and only cost 10' of movement to reach).
An alternative, that appears to address some of these issues, is to play on a hex grid rather than a square one.
The bottom line is really how "realistic" do you want to get in terms of simulation (considering all the other elements that can be consider less realistic) and whether the extra overhead of counting range and movement is worthwhile. (You could also count each diagonal square as 7 or 7.5 feet (square root 50 to be exact) for movement but the math is generally not worth the additional "realism".
P.S. Keep in mind also that a creature doesn't fill their square and you need to ask whether the reach and/or movement needs to extend to the center of the target square from the center of the original square, to the far edge of the target square, to the near edge of the target square. from the edge of the original square to the center of the target square or something else. A character with a polearm at the corner of the center square with a 10' reach weapon would be able to extend that weapon to affect some part of the red corner squares ... is that sufficient to make an attack? (they can't quite reach the center of the red corner squares but then again what does "10' reach" really mean if you are trying to make it more realistic?
These are all a DM call :) ... so basically play what feels ok for you and go with it ... just be wary of added complication in the name of "realism" that isn't actually buying you anything any more "realistic".
We personally use the 5-10-5-10 rule for moving diagonally, we feel it seems more accurate than the standard 5 rule. That is why I removed the red squares.
I think I am going to go with allowing yellow squares but if an ally is between them to add either half or 3 quarters cover.
As you stated I posted this question because I the more I thought about it the more I thought I was over complicating it.
I think I am going to go with allowing yellow squares but if an ally is between them to add either half or 3 quarters cover.
Why three-quarters? A creature only provides half cover, even if they're dead center in the way. A creature that controls a 5' x 5' space doesn't physically take up all of that space, and there aren't even any green squares that would be directly in the middle of the attacker and the yellow squares.
I said both because off the top of my head I couldn't remember if it was half cover or three-quarters. I was going to look it up later and use that one.
I would advise being consistent across all situations of diagonals so the player doesn't feel singled out. Movement has been mentioned, but also ranged attacks, spells, etc should be equally house ruled if diagonal measurement comes into play. For spell effects and auras, there are grid templates that can be used so that you can avoid creating modified effects for spells that touch half a square and not the full square.
I am still getting used to playing on a square grid mat. I play a lot of hex and outer war-games, so counting range on hex grids is second nature to me. The diagonals, especially those leading to the yellow squares still take a bit of puzzling out. I will probably use the 5-10-5-10 system.
I used to play with miniatures on an open tabletop using rulers for measurement. The source of argument then was where to measure to and from on the miniatures. Pose and base size could make quite a difference.
For templates, like a 10' radius for example, we decided that half or more under the template coated as in, half or more outside the template was out. If it was exactly half and half you could dice for it.
So one of my players built a control fighter with a reach weapon meant to help control how enemies moved around combat. When he spoke with me about it, I pretty much got what he was trying to do. However, in game, we ran into a little disagreement that I kinda don't know how to rule on.
So using the gird example below, We pretty much agreed that red was out of reach, however it's the yellow spaces we debated on. I personally ruled that they would be at disadvantage but he did make a point that square grids do complicate this and that technically those would be within 10 feet of him as well.
My question was for those who use a grid system how do you handle reach weapons?
If you care about about precision but still want to play with a grid, use the optional rule in the DMG for diagonals. When measuring distances, every odd diagonal (the 1st, 3rd, etc) counts as 5 feet while the even diagonals count as 10. It's close enough for game purposes. Using that rule, the yellow squares are within reach.
No need to use something as heavy-handed as disadvantage for this. Don't forget that any creatures in the way will provide half cover.
I prefer the 5-10 diagonal rules where the first diagonal is 5 ft, the second diagonal is 10, then 5, then 10, etc (which would put yellow squares at 10 ft and red squares at 15 ft).
The 5e rules as written just has diagonal be 5 ft (making red squares 10 ft away), though technically playing on a grid is a rule variant.
In the base grid variant, all the squares are within 10' of the center.
If you are going to apply the second diagonal = 10' variant rule to reach, will you also apply it to movement? Movement is far more common than reach weapon applications and it seems inconsistent to try to use it in one case and not the other. This will make movement more difficult to calculate and keep track of and may lead to some edge cases where characters move farther by avoiding diagonals (or at least only having one in their movement).
The most commonly used approach (at least in the games I have played) is that all squares on the grid are 5' whether on a line or diagonal in which cases all squares in your diagram are within the 10' reach of the polearm (and only cost 10' of movement to reach).
An alternative, that appears to address some of these issues, is to play on a hex grid rather than a square one.
The bottom line is really how "realistic" do you want to get in terms of simulation (considering all the other elements that can be consider less realistic) and whether the extra overhead of counting range and movement is worthwhile. (You could also count each diagonal square as 7 or 7.5 feet (square root 50 to be exact) for movement but the math is generally not worth the additional "realism".
P.S. Keep in mind also that a creature doesn't fill their square and you need to ask whether the reach and/or movement needs to extend to the center of the target square from the center of the original square, to the far edge of the target square, to the near edge of the target square. from the edge of the original square to the center of the target square or something else. A character with a polearm at the corner of the center square with a 10' reach weapon would be able to extend that weapon to affect some part of the red corner squares ... is that sufficient to make an attack? (they can't quite reach the center of the red corner squares but then again what does "10' reach" really mean if you are trying to make it more realistic?
These are all a DM call :) ... so basically play what feels ok for you and go with it ... just be wary of added complication in the name of "realism" that isn't actually buying you anything any more "realistic".
We personally use the 5-10-5-10 rule for moving diagonally, we feel it seems more accurate than the standard 5 rule. That is why I removed the red squares.
I think I am going to go with allowing yellow squares but if an ally is between them to add either half or 3 quarters cover.
As you stated I posted this question because I the more I thought about it the more I thought I was over complicating it.
Thanks for all the feedback.
Why three-quarters? A creature only provides half cover, even if they're dead center in the way. A creature that controls a 5' x 5' space doesn't physically take up all of that space, and there aren't even any green squares that would be directly in the middle of the attacker and the yellow squares.
I said both because off the top of my head I couldn't remember if it was half cover or three-quarters. I was going to look it up later and use that one.
Ah, fair enough. It kinda sounded like you were going to choose between one or the other depending on the circumstances.
I would advise being consistent across all situations of diagonals so the player doesn't feel singled out. Movement has been mentioned, but also ranged attacks, spells, etc should be equally house ruled if diagonal measurement comes into play. For spell effects and auras, there are grid templates that can be used so that you can avoid creating modified effects for spells that touch half a square and not the full square.
I am still getting used to playing on a square grid mat. I play a lot of hex and outer war-games, so counting range on hex grids is second nature to me. The diagonals, especially those leading to the yellow squares still take a bit of puzzling out. I will probably use the 5-10-5-10 system.
I used to play with miniatures on an open tabletop using rulers for measurement. The source of argument then was where to measure to and from on the miniatures. Pose and base size could make quite a difference.
For templates, like a 10' radius for example, we decided that half or more under the template coated as in, half or more outside the template was out. If it was exactly half and half you could dice for it.