Combat should players know monster reach?

[Stewbert]

A debate came up in session that had the party split down the middle the majority favouring option B) wondering what you guys do. It largely boils down to if characters should know the exact reach of a creature by judgement or if they get hit first to work it out

A) combat is like chess you know a creatures exact reach and know a lot about its abilities. Combat becomes strategically provoking AoO's whilst having squishier heroes delay then going in afterwards then kiting the reach limit by 5ft etc.

B) you're in the dark you can guess the monsters reach but its just that... A guess. Combat becomes less strategy and more trial and error working it out as everything goes tits up. Though strategy is still involved

Option B leads to exciting nerve wrecking immersive combat where option A allows you to work together as a group to problem solve and strategically take a victory without dieing to the unknown.

How do you guys role your combat in particular with regards to reach?

[SangoProduction]

Depends on how you want to play it out.

However, most creatures with reach noticeably have reach. The exceptions tend to be shape-shifter type creatures who can morph their body to increase their reach spontaneously.

You've got a spear? You clearly can threaten a much larger area. You've got giant tentacles? It's not always obvious exactly how far they reach, but they probably have reach.

[Svata]

As reach is directly tied to size, I say if they can see it, they know its reach.

[Troacctid]

If nothing else, players should be able to make an appropriate Knowledge check to gain the information.

The monster's size category should also be known information, assuming the players have clear vision of it, and players should be allowed to know the standard reach for a creature of that size category (although they may not necessarily if this guy they're fighting is an exception).

[Necroticplague]

Outside of a few rare excaptions, most things that make up a character's reach are fairly visible. Their size category is easy, whether they're long or tall, whether they have a reach weapon. Some reach improving feats are also easily visible, like deformity (gaunt) and Aberrant reach. Some others aren't so easy to tell. You might not know they have the Lunge feat till you see them use it. You might not know a Warshapers reach until you see their arms contort out to punch you.

[Sayt]

Generally speaking, I think that a character should be able to estimate what a monster's reach would usually be. While size categories are a meta/rules construct, so is a grid map which you use to plot out battles, and you can generally expect a a Dwarf to have 5 ft. reach, or a Hill Giant to have 15 ft, or a Centaur to be large but have 5 ft. reach.

On the other hand, you might not know that a True Dragon's bite extends out an extra 5 feet until it bites you, or know that a given weapon can be used in different modes with different reaches.

[BowStreetRunner]

A knowledge check will give you the exact answer, but absent that you can guess based upon size. Obviously the guess won't work for creatures with an unusual reach.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Outside of a few rare excaptions, most things that make up a character's reach are fairly visible. Their size category is easy, whether they're long or tall, whether they have a reach weapon. Some reach improving feats are also easily visible, like deformity (gaunt) and Aberrant reach. Some others aren't so easy to tell. You might not know they have the Lunge feat till you see them use it. You might not know a Warshapers reach until you see their arms contort out to punch you.
Pretty much exactly this. You should know the obvious (size, weapon, etc.) Subtle natural boosts need a Knowledge check, and class stuff is hidden until used.

[FocusWolf413]

I'd just make it a relatively easy spot, sense motive, or knowledge check.

[Khedrac]

I am at work so I cannot check my books but I am reasonably sure that either the DMG or the MM actually states that characters should be aware of an opponent's apparent reach.
If the opponent has a non-standard reach then they will not be aware of it without knowledge checks or seeing it used.

[Andreaz]

Reach is an implicit value, directly tied to an explicit value: threatened area.
Every character, pc or npc, is aware of the threatened area its senses can detect.

You can surprise others if reach is mismatched with threatened area. Things like Lunge and larger threat radii than actual reach. These, when possible to know, require appropriate knowledge checks.

[Psyren]

I would say all PCs automatically know the standard reach by size. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreatu resInCombat) For monsters that deviate from this (e.g. aberrant limbs, buffs, feats like Lunge and the like) I would require a knowledge check.

[Nifft]

Outside of a few rare excaptions, most things that make up a character's reach are fairly visible. Their size category is easy, whether they're long or tall, whether they have a reach weapon. Some reach improving feats are also easily visible, like deformity (gaunt) and Aberrant reach. Some others aren't so easy to tell. You might not know they have the Lunge feat till you see them use it. You might not know a Warshapers reach until you see their arms contort out to punch you.

This exactly.

Reach is usually obvious on both sides. When it's not obvious, then one side ought to be surprised -- or both sides ought to be surprised, if a PC has some unusual way of gaining Reach.

[Jay R]

Based on years of fencing, I assume the following.

1. Based on height, the PCs can guess reach. This guess is sometimes wrong.
2. After the first time they've been hit, they should know the monster's reach.

[rrwoods]

There are a number of fluff arguments to make in favor of non-standard reach being private but discoverable information (and probably some rules arguments as well; e.g., Warshaper's "morphic reach" feature). However at my tables we houserule all reach to be public. It reduces the number of "feel-bad" moments for the players -- we are all here to have fun, remember! Further, when the DM knows that a player character has reach, but the NPC doesn't, there's this awkward obvious attempt to not-metagame that invariably ends up with the NPC "accidentally" discovering it. We prefer to eliminate all of that and just make all reach public.

[Kantolin]

Reach involes you 'threatening' an area.

I personally find it hard for someone to threaten an area without it being very noticable to the person being threatened! For it to not be obvious once you've stepped into the area at the very least, they would need some method of 'I'm not normally threatening a given area, but then I use some sort of action/ability that makes me suddenly threatening the area'.

So a magical trap that keys off 'target is about to cast', surprise. An immediate action spell/power which is 'Your reach increases by 5ft', surprise or at least reasonable to be a surprise. But a guy who is under an effect which gives them additional reach, obvious.

Then again, this is just how we've always run it in my group! So this may be a house rule we don't realize we're undertaking, haha, as it sounds like RAW is at least inconclusive on the subject.

[Quertus]

Yes, everyone should know everyone's reach.

Exception: things that specifically, explicitly state that you don't.

The only thing I can remember explicitly stating that it has greater reach than perceived is some oddball humanoid undead that can suddenly grow claws out to 20 feet or something. And, yes, a knowledge check should let you know that monster's ability, just like anything else.

This monster wouldn't have needed rules stating that you don't know its reach unless the rules say you normally know a creature's reach.

Can you still be playing D&D in a world where things don't know each other's reach? I suppose, but, if so, *I* want to be playing the guy with the world-supported incalculable reach. Might make fighters almost playable ;)

[Greenish]

Reach involes you 'threatening' an area.

I personally find it hard for someone to threaten an area without it being very noticable to the person being threatened!I think the rules are just using "threatening" an area as a short-hand for "being able to land an attack if an enemy gives you an opportunity to do so". It's not a person being threatened, after all, that would be an Intimidate check. From that perspective, creatures with surprisingly long reach (like chokers or boneclaws) could easily "threaten" an area without the opponents' realizing it.

Having everyone know everyone's range does admittedly have the advantage of simplicity. There are plenty enough of moving parts in D&D combat already.

[Keltest]

Barring a character taking specific measures to learn information about a monster, I would go with B. If you see a gnoll with a polearm, you can be reasonable certain the polearm wont grow to smack you when it attacks, but you aren't going to be able to get an estimate on the max range of a dragon's breath weapon unless you actually see it spew it out at max distance for you.

[Kantolin]

I think the rules are just using "threatening" an area as a short-hand for "being able to land an attack if an enemy gives you an opportunity to do so". It's not a person being threatened, after all, that would be an Intimidate check.

I always took 'threatening an area' to mean that you are actively interacting with that given area with your weapon. This generally means combat stuff (So that sort of threatening).

So when you get within reach of something with a long natural reach, you are aware they are threatening a given area because stepping near them causes conflict! Such conflict that, if you drop your guard in any of a dozen ways, they can stab you for it.

Otherwise, that means that the (say) cloaker can just determine when someone has dropped their guard for some reason and otherwise is standing around just... standing there. Which feels weird.

I mean, magic sure. 'As an immediate action I get myself reach' or something. But by default, that would imply that people are just standing around. They also dont' get to sneak attack you or treat you as flat footed or anything, so it's obviously not automatically surprising.

Balance wise, it also makes reach (which is already quite powerful) more powerful than it needs to be (and /generally/ in ways that help casters, as it's less common for a martial to be able to have /unusual/ reach).

(Although, wouldn't that mean monks should automatically get that kind of surprise? They're never armed).

[Nifft]

Such conflict that, if you drop your guard in any of a dozen ways, they can stab you for it.

Otherwise, that means that the (say) cloaker can just determine when someone has dropped their guard for some reason and otherwise is standing around just... standing there. Which feels weird. Imagine that over the course of 6 seconds there are a lot of attempts and a lot of dodges. Or that sometimes the opponents are literally just staring at each other, weapons raised, waiting to see who's going to make the first move -- and then a flurry of activity when someone does move. But there's no particular constant behavior.

It's possible that the swordsman tried to stab you six times, once per second, and only hit when you actually broke your stance to run away. That hit was the opportunity attack; the other six were just narrative flavor.


(Although, wouldn't that mean monks should automatically get that kind of surprise? They're never armed). If a Monk were a dangerous melee opponent, that would certainly surprise some people.

[Kantolin]

It's possible that the swordsman tried to stab you six times, once per second, and only hit when you actually broke your stance to run away. That hit was the opportunity attack; the other six were just narrative flavor.

We are in agreement; that is generally how I'm used to seeing it too. ^_^ That's why I find being threatened to be obvious.

(Well, outside of magic spell or psionic power or nifty sword trick or something that can let you uh... extend your power pole in a way the other guy didn't see coming or something)

So when you go near a choker, it's obvious you're being threatened because otherwise you'd be flat-footed when you were attacked out of nowhere.

[Curmudgeon]

1. Based on height, the PCs can guess reach. This guess is sometimes wrong.
2. After the first time they've been hit, they should know the monster's reach.
I wouldn't be so sure about that latter point. You see an unarmed Medium opponent, and guess they have 5' of reach. They hit you at 10'. You can obviously make a better guess after that. But you might guess that you'll be safe at 15' and get smacked again. So you step back and they Quick Draw their spiked chain and hit you some more. You've only established a range in which you know they can hit you, but not a range where you know they can't hit you.

[atemu1234]

As reach is directly tied to size, I say if they can see it, they know its reach.

This seems logical.

[Curmudgeon]

As reach is directly tied to size, I say if they can see it, they know its reach.
That's not correct. Size establishes base reach, but many things (feats, spells, magic items, a martial stance) can alter reach without changing size. You can see that a creature is Small in size and know that its base reach is 5'. It could also have 25' of reach and still be Small.

[PraxisVetli]

The only thing I can remember explicitly stating that it has greater reach than perceived is some oddball humanoid undead that can suddenly grow claws out to 20 feet or something.


Boneclaw, MM III.
Those things are stupid efficient with the right classes.
Like swordsage/telflammar.
Almost murdered a party with a duo of them once.

[Andreaz]

That's not correct. Size establishes base reach, but many things (feats, spells, magic items, a martial stance) can alter reach without changing size. You can see that a creature is Small in size and know that its base reach is 5'. It could also have 25' of reach and still be Small.

Hm. Mr Curmudgeon...that is exactly "reach is directly tied to size". What you are saying is "reach is not exclusively tied to size", which is also right, but in no way invalidates the first statement.

[Psyren]

Hm. Mr Curmudgeon...that is exactly "reach is directly tied to size". What you are saying is "reach is not exclusively tied to size", which is also right, but in no way invalidates the first statement.

What he was saying is "base reach is tied to size." Which is an important distinction.

[Svata]

Sorry, let me restate. For the most part, outside of certain exceptions (some attacks, a few specific creatures, spells, etc...), reach is directly related to size. Other than in circumstances where these are in effect, they should know the reach of any creatures they can see.

[Psyren]

Sorry, let me restate. For the most part, outside of certain exceptions (some attacks, a few specific creatures, spells, etc...), reach is directly related to size. Other than in circumstances where these are in effect, they should know the reach of any creatures they can see.

Indeed, and this goes back to what I said - by looking at a creature you should get these base reaches. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreatu resInCombat) Anything more (feats, magic items, buffs etc.) would require an appropriate knowledge or spellcraft check.

[Red Fel]

Indeed, and this goes back to what I said - by looking at a creature you should get these base reaches. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreatu resInCombat) Anything more (feats, magic items, buffs etc.) would require an appropriate knowledge or spellcraft check.

Well, size of the creature and reach of any visible, brandished weapon should be readily apparent. Yeah, other stuff (feats, etc.) should require a check, but if you see a guy wielding, say, a glaive, it doesn't take specialized knowledge to parse, "Gee, that weapon looks long, I bet he could hit me even if I stood over here."

In fact, take it a step further. I would go so far as to say that any immediately obvious physical feature that increases reach does not require a check. Larger-sized enemy? Obviously he can reach me, guy's ginormous. Reach weapon? Obviously it can reach me, look at the size of that thing. Willing Deformity (Tall) feat? Obviously he can reach me, do you see those freaky arms? Long, spindly tentacles? Obviously they can reach me, because this is my nightmare. Magic item? Not obvious, needs a check. Magical aura? Not obvious, requires a check. Feat or class feature that increases your threatened radius? Not obvious, requires a check.

[Psyren]

Well, size of the creature and reach of any visible, brandished weapon should be readily apparent. Yeah, other stuff (feats, etc.) should require a check, but if you see a guy wielding, say, a glaive, it doesn't take specialized knowledge to parse, "Gee, that weapon looks long, I bet he could hit me even if I stood over here."

Yeah I'm down with that.

Note that when I said "magic items" I was more referring to items that affect your reach in some way, not merely a +x reach weapon.

[Necroticplague]

I.E, Choker gauntlets.