Threatening in Three Dimensions

[K Man]

Alright, I've been debating this with Japic heavily for the past few days, and it's been in our minds for at least four times that long. I thought it best to put it to the members of our boards and get everyone's opinions. Maybe they have covered this before elsewhere or maybe someone has a certain way it is handled at home.

Regardless, I invite everyone to vote on this, give their thoughts and let us know what you think. I think its an important question that needs to be answered.

---

The question: Should threat ranges be handled in two dimensions or three?

---

The setup:

We've got Grok, a standard Half-Orc fighter, medium character with a longsword. Consequently, the threatens 5ft out from the square he occupies. If we were to look upon Grok from above, this is what his threat range would look like:



Grok threatens exactly 8 squares.

Now, if we take away Grok's longsword and give him a longspear, a reach 10ft weapon, and look upon him from the same view, this is what we would see:



Grok now threatens 20 squares (everything the orange touches).

Now, Arthak, the great god of battle gives Grok back his longsword and suspends him in a vast, empty space. There is nothing above or below Grok. If we look upon his threat range, cut cleanly in 3 slices to illustrate, it would look something like this:



Grok threatens 26 squares, above and below him. Arthak then decides to be a gracious god and give Grok back his longspear. If continue to look at Grok in the same view, it would look like this:



Grok now threatens 80 squares!! That is a lot of squares for Grok to threaten!

Arthak decides he is too tired to show threat ranges for a longer weapon, like a spiked chain and hopes the mortals get the idea.

---

The issue:

There are significant benefits to threatening in both 2D and 3D, and it must be decided how it will be handled.

Obvious benefits of threatening in 3 dimensions are the number of threatened squares. I haven't done the math, but I imagine the threat range per 5ft of reach is nearly exponential the farther out you go. From 5ft reach to 10ft reach was almost 60 threatened squares more!

Another obvious benefit of 3D threatening (for characters with reach) is that they do not need to descend to the same plane as an enemy to attack. This can be extremely helpful when a dragon wants to rake a PC in a tight canyon. He just flies overhead, takes an attack through the bottom of this threat range and never worries about obstacles that aren't on his plane.

So, let's get to the benefits of threatening in 2 dimensions. The obvious is really from the DM standpoint. As a DM, I've got less math to do, less arguments to settle, and less rules to remembers. Posts come out quicker, arguments are lessened etc...just less overhead without a headache like this.

Another benefit is granted to those without reach. In the case of Grok standing flat on a level surface, he threatens out one square and only up as far as his height. The same goes for the dragon that wants to rake Grok with his talons. To do so, the dragon must descend to Grok's plane since he cannot attack 'below' his mass. See this illustration of a side view of Grok v. a Huge Red Dragon:



The dragon must be on the same plane as Grok to attack. If Grok is hiding in a 10ft deep, 5ft wide canyon, the dragon cannot reach him because he cannot squeeze into a space that small and Grok is safe. This is far better than the possible cover that might be granted to Grok if reach came in 3D.

So, to summarize the issue, see this table:

3D PROS	3D CONS	2D PROS	2D CONS
Number of threatened squares increases greatly Benefits for reach characters apply all around, above and below More AoO's against flying creatures in cramped quarters	Major accounting headaches for DMs Possibly more debates about legality of attacks Bringing more physics and rules into an already rule-heavy game	Speed of combat because we can ignore common sense physics Advantage to non-reach PCs in cramped quarters Less rules to remember	Less realism Less AoO's against flying characters because they need only leave your plane and avoid AoO

That's the debate people. I bring it up now because it could have serious consequences for our Dragonslayers Game as the PCs are facing a huge red in a cramped tunnel. The dragon could take an AoO on Grimgor and that could have consequences, the dragon can full withdraw and escape without a scratch--so I'd like to at least get the Dragonslayers' opinion before we proceed in that game.

Cast your vote!

[Japic]

Well, that jsut about sums it up. As KMan said this has been on the table for a long time, but terribly important before now, so not worth the time.

I'm with KMan about the pros and cons, and neither of us are certain if the rules for 3d reach have been covered elsewhere.

To me it seems reasonable that a man with a sword in his hand can swipe at a dragon passing overhead, as long as it is within the space he can reach. In the same scanario of the dragon just above his height category, it seems unreasonable to expect that the dragon can move his entire body past three threatened squares (as if he were on level ground) and not once open himself to an attack from teh clever and resourceful PC.

In either case we can't come to a reasonable conclusion ourselves since there aren't any rules that we can find. Here's where all of you guys come in. Thoughts, questions concerns?

Whatever decision is reached by the community is the rules that we'll most likely be playing with going forward. We can expect to see much in the way of 3D environments in the Dragonslayers game, so this point needs to be laid to rest.

Thanks for your help guys and gals!

[TheUdjat]

First, your examples are written for a longsword and a spiked chain already, KMan. Longspears and most reach weapons don't confer the ability to attack squares adjacent to them. So, for instance, in the first example Grok threatens 12 squares, not 20. And I'm not calculating the other one.

I've always felt that squares above and below should be treated just the same. I don't see why D&D's rules wouldn't work in three dimensions as well as two. Yes, it's a bit more work, but not THAT much. Maybe I'm better at spatial thinking than others, but I doubt it.

The biggest reason, in my opinion, to use 3-dimensional rules is because it makes sense. D&D rules should only extend as far as is reasonable, and if that reason starts interfering with the small amount of realism that D&D has, than it just gets kind of ridiculous. You could have some creature 30' in the air that's at no less risk than if they were on the ground.

It's not just Threats that D&D doesn't give rules for in 3 dimensions. It's also range (as we discovered in the Arena). But a certain measure of practicality should come into play. If a dragon can stand out of your reach and hit you, it ought to be able to fly over your reach and hit you. A bummer for the PCs, but this is a freaking dragon, after all.

But yes, this can all get rather complicated, and that's probably why they left it up to a DM's call. I'd probably go with the complications, especially in a play-by-post situation where you can take the time before posting to figure this sort of thing out, and illustrate with diagrams and stuff (as you just did). I would think, for a game dependent on 3-dimensional combat, Dragonslayers would follow the same idea. But should, say, Old Masters? It's probably not as important.

I dunno, it just seems logical to me. If I can't reach something over my head, I can't threaten it. If something can reach its arm down and smack me from far away, it should be allowed that option, tactically. It just makes sense.

[Deekin]

Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.
Reach Weapons

Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

So if you can attack over your head, you can make AoO over your head. In my PnP games, that's how I've rulled it.

Also, you dragon can withdraw, I get AoO

The Withdraw Action: You can use the withdraw action (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook) to leave one threatened square without provoking attacks of opportunity (that square doesn't count as a threatened square). You can move up to twice your speed when withdrawing, but you're safe only from attacks of opportunity you'd provoke when leaving your first square. Foes you can't see (or discern through blindsight) can make attacks of opportunity against you even when you leave that first square.

The withdraw action is a full-round action, so you can't take other actions if you withdraw during your turn.

[Wicksy]

I voted 3d. You can affectively model the situation as a cube instead of a square. In this case, Grimgor would certainly expect to get an AoO against him. Its simple enough in these circulstances where everyone is hampered. When its out in the open, we have to consider adjustment of altitue in 3 dimensions, which is simple enough to model by just making it the same as moving around on the ground. It makes a bit more work for the DM and players but there is enhanced realism.

One thing i would say though is that if we go with 3d rules and Grmigor could of avoided an AoO by flying higher, we should let him. It would be harsh to penalise him just because the laws of gaming change half way in (though TSR didnt have that problem with the change to 3.5 ed. )

[Toptomcat]

Frankly, I've always thought 3D was the default.

[BluSpecs]

3d threatening seems like the best course, it seems cheesy to rule it otherwise

[TheUdjat]

bluspecs said:

3d threatening seems like the best course, it seems cheesy to rule it otherwise

He lives!

And your first post in over 8 months is a... a rules question? Madness!

Good to see you around, though.

[BluSpecs]

And here I thought I'd sneak back into with out anyone noticing.


Good to see you to!

[VemuKhaham]

I'd say 3d is the way to go, for all the reasons given above. It's only fair, and not that much more complex.

And Bluspecs, welcome back man! Hope to see you in a game some time again!

[Toptomcat]

Consensus appears to have been reached.

[Fangor the Fierce]

I would agree with 3d, as a DM, it's the best option, and as a character, I believe it will not restrict the inventiveness of getting out of situations and such. More overhead, but worth it in the long run.

Although, in KMANS dilema, Harviss, the huge red dragon, stated he landed on the ledge, and then moved up inside the tunnel. If he withdrew, he would have to go through Wendell, Slayer, and then get an AoO from Nevitash, as Nev threatens more than one square, and Harviss would draw an AoO from at least one of those... grapple, cough cough...

So, my vote, 3D

[dapilky]

I would say that you only threaten the square directyly above and below. The other squares are not only five feet away, but also five feet either above or below. To ease things just above and below.

UI used that often in a star wars game where everyone and there uincle was force jumping over peoples heads, so to avoid this single tactic that was grotesquely deadly with a higher level jedi, I gave aoo to anyone leaving combat or going though a square occupied, wether they were above or not.

Simply look at it as swinging a cat. You can swing a cat five feet in every direction around you, but when you go up or down you loose the distance outward for distance upward. Therefore, your 5 foot means only straight up or down.

[TheUdjat]

However, when attacking in two-dimensions, you can attack diagonal squares. Why not diagonal cubes? Range is a radius, not a line. Only threatening the square directly above and below is interesting, though.

But it probably wouldn't work with larger creatures, if simply for the fact that they take up 4 squares. Then considering reach, they should be able to sacrifice some distance down for distance laterally. It almost seems more complicated.