PDA

View Full Version : Reach of 0 feet



Greywander
2021-05-05, 05:52 PM
I was going to make a longer post talking about an idea I've considered involving making some changes to spacing and reach, one of which was to default creatures to a reach of 0 feet (e.g. for animals who can only bite or claw), while the long arms of humanoids gives them a reach bonus. I was thinking that a reach of 0 meant you would need to move into the same space as your target, which might lead to further rules for wrestling (perhaps as an advanced version of grappling). But then I realized that a reach of 0 might not require moving into the same space as your target.

The question is: does reach start at the center of your space, or the edge of your space? I looked, and I can't seem to find any rule in the PHB that answers this. As I see it, there are three potential options:

Reach starts at the center of your space.
Reach starts at the center of any 5-foot square you occupy. (For medium and smaller creatures, this is identical to the above.)
Reach starts at the edge of your space, and includes everything inside your space as well.

After some research, I've concluded that the first one can't be true. It seems the general rule is for huge and larger creatures to have a reach of 10 feet or greater. There are more than a few large creatures with a 5 foot reach, which, if reach started at the center of their space, would only reach to the very edge of their space. However, this only means they need to be directly adjacent to their target, as long as their reach is able to touch the target's space (though see comments below). Finally, after scrolling through the MM I came across the triceratops, a huge (15x15) creature with only a 5 foot reach. The triceratops' reach doesn't even go all the way to the edge of its space (7.5 feet), meaning it could only attack creatures that were within its space.

The second one is plausible. I'd think it a bit fiddly except that it's identical to the first option for medium and smaller creatures, so the fiddliness only applies to large and larger creatures (which aren't encountered as often).

Starting at the edge is also very plausible, although it introduces a new issue: if your reach only needs to touch your target's space, then you can actually attack from 10 feet away with only a 5 foot reach. You do this by having one 5-foot square between you and your target, which your reach spans entirely. The counter to this is that merely touching the space is insufficient, as with the AoE rules the target's space has to be inside your reach, not just touching it. Thus, you could attack someone standing 4.99 feet away, but 5 feet away would be just touching your reach and not inside it.

This then leads to a question of what counts as being within reach, giving us three more options:

The target's space must touch your reach.
Any part of the target's space must be inside your reach.
The center of the target's space must touch your reach.

I think we can safely rule out that last one, as it would make creatures with a shorter reach unable to attack larger targets at all. So this really only between the first two.

I think the answer to this is it's clearly intended that, if movement snaps to a grid, creatures with a 5-foot reach must be in adjacent squares to attack one another. Thus, if reach starts at the edge of your space, then it's probably option 2; they must be inside your reach, not merely touching it. If reach starts from the center of any 5-foot space you occupy, then it could be option 1, but either would actually work.

Hmm, I think I just ended up talking myself in a circle. In the end, it seems a creature with 0 reach would need to move into the same space as their target. As far as I'm aware, 5e doesn't have any rules for such a situation, though perhaps you'd use the squeezing-into-a-smaller-space rules and have disadvantage on your attacks (although attacks against a squeezing creature have advantage, so like with mutual blindness, they'd cancel out). Part of the idea I was considered included adding a minimum range, and instead of not being able to attack at all, I might just give disadvantage on attacks inside your minimum range, making it comparable to squeezing.

This also opens up the concept of wrestling, which could be as simple as grappling a creature and then moving into their space (perhaps moving into their space without grappling would provoke an OA, or maybe you just couldn't move into the space at all). If this counts as squeezing, then attacks against either of you have advantage, so it's basically the Grappler feat.

Unoriginal
2021-05-05, 06:01 PM
You control the entirety of the "square" you occupy, the 5ft reach is everything within 5ft of said square. So the "reach starts at the edge of your space, and includes everything inside your space as well" would be the correct one.


Which means that for example a Huge NPC with a reach of 5ft will cover more squares than a Medium one.

A reach of 0 would mean you can only do the thing if you are occupying at least one of the same squares as the target. Ex: an Halfling climbing on a Frost Giant.


In the end, it seems a creature with 0 reach would need to move into the same space as their target. As far as I'm aware, 5e doesn't have any rules for such a situation

Well there are the "Climb on a Creature" rules in the DMG.

Tanarii
2021-05-05, 06:20 PM
The rules aren't written with a battle grid in mind.

The closest you've got for a rule on your question is PHB 192 Variant: Playing on a Grid
Ranges. To determine the range on a grid between two things-whether creatures or objects-start counting squares from a square adjacent to one ofthem and stop counting in the space ofthe other one. Count by the shortest route.

So 1 square from a creatures square is 5ft. 2 squares is 10ft. Etc. And zero squares is 0ft.

Osuniev
2021-05-05, 06:27 PM
I thought there were some swarms with a reach of 0 feet, who needed to be on the square of the creature they attacked ? Did I make that up ?

ETA : Yup, I was right, here it is for Swarm of Insects :


Swarm. The swarm can occupy another creature's space and vice versa, and the swarm can move through any opening large enough for a Tiny insect. The swarm can't regain hit points or gain temporary hit points.

ACTIONS
Bites. Melee Weapon Attack: +3 to hit, reach 0 ft., one target in the swarm's space. Hit: 10 (4d4) piercing damage, or 5 (2d4) piercing damage if the swarm has half of its hit points or fewer.

Same for the Swarm of Quippers. Neat.

Unoriginal
2021-05-05, 06:33 PM
I thought there were some swarms with a reach of 0 feet, who needed to be on the square of the creature they attacked ? Did I make that up ?

ETA : Yup, I was right, here it is for Swarm of Insects :

Well remembered, Osuniev! I had completely forgotten about that.

Even when a swarm of rot grubs trying to eat a Grung PC only to discover their skin is toxic was a memorable moment in one session I DMed.

Osuniev
2021-05-05, 06:39 PM
Funnily enough, while the swarm of quippers has a reach of 0 feet, the single quipper has a reach of 5 feet.

I guess the attack of the swarm is supposed to represent ALL (or, a huge number of) of the quippers biting, so it makes sense...

And although if find it fine that a raven has a reach of 5 feet (in my head, the Reach represents the Raven being able to jump/fly toward his target), it now bothers me that the SPIDER has a reach of 5 feet. If that spider is biting me, surely it should be in my space.

JackPhoenix
2021-05-05, 06:46 PM
Funnily enough, while the swarm of quippers has a reach of 0 feet, the single quipper has a reach of 5 feet.

I guess the attack of the swarm is supposed to represent ALL (or, a huge number of) of the quippers biting, so it makes sense...

And although if find it fine that a raven has a reach of 5 feet (in my head, the Reach represents the Raven being able to jump/fly toward his target), it now bothers me that the SPIDER has a reach of 5 feet. If that spider is biting me, surely it should be in my space.

That spider is also just as strong as the raven, and occupies the same space. It's not the kind of spider you'll find in a corner of your room, unless you live in Australia. If the reach represents the raven being able to jump or fly towards the target, why can't it also represent the spider being able to crawl/run/jump towards its target?

Osuniev
2021-05-05, 07:02 PM
That spider is also just as strong as the raven, and occupies the same space. It's not the kind of spider you'll find in a corner of your room, unless you live in Australia. If the reach represents the raven being able to jump or fly towards the target, why can't it also represent the spider being able to crawl/run/jump towards its target?

Hey, you're right. I forgot jumping spiders existed... :smalleek:

Greywander
2021-05-05, 07:06 PM
That's actually one of the reasons I was thinking about 0 reach, though I was thinking more about things like wolves than spiders. I think part of the issue stems from how spacing and size are handled; there's nothing smaller than tiny, which occupies a 2.5-foot space. For playing on a grid, it seems that tiny creatures occupy a whole 5 foot square, but you can stack up to four tiny creatures on the same square (there's no subdividing 5-foot squares into smaller squares). Also, it seems the rules already don't allow you to end your turn in another creature's space (which is weird considering that there are rules for climbing larger creatures, which must mean you're in their space) (swarms have an ability that makes them an exception to this rule).

So you have a monster of a spider that takes up a 2.5-foot square (this doesn't necessarily mean that it's 2.5 feet across; as the PHB says, medium creatures aren't 5 feet wide), and for grid rules it has to be placed on a 5-foot square. The spider also can't end its turn in your space, although if you are medium or larger it can move through your space. With a reach of 0, it could attack a creature while moving through its space, but it would need to awkwardly move off that space before ending its turn. However, for small or tiny creatures, it can't even move through their space, and thus if it had a reach of 0 it would not be able to attack them at all.

Let's think about cats for a moment. The average cat is about a foot long (not including the tail), so it's just plain ridiculous for cats to have a 5-foot reach. This implies that the cat can interact with something that is 5 feet away from it, which is 5 times its own body length! This can also lead to other weirdness, like tiny creatures having the equivalent of a reach weapon all the time; a tiny creature can reach over another tiny creature to hit something behind it, just like you could use a polearm to hit a creature on the other side of another medium creature.

I realize things are the way they are because it's easier and simpler to run. A cat can't actually interact with things from 5 feet away, it's just easier to run them as having a 5-foot reach in combat.

Osuniev
2021-05-05, 07:30 PM
That's actually one of the reasons I was thinking about 0 reach, though I was thinking more about things like wolves than spiders. I think part of the issue stems from how spacing and size are handled; there's nothing smaller than tiny, which occupies a 2.5-foot space. For playing on a grid, it seems that tiny creatures occupy a whole 5 foot square, but you can stack up to four tiny creatures on the same square (there's no subdividing 5-foot squares into smaller squares). Also, it seems the rules already don't allow you to end your turn in another creature's space (which is weird considering that there are rules for climbing larger creatures, which must mean you're in their space) (swarms have an ability that makes them an exception to this rule).


Actually, they DO allow it if there's a two size difference, I believe.

ETA : well, this one i misremembered :


You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you. Remember that another creature's space is difficult terrain for you.

Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space.*

ETA : well ACTUALLY, your spider only occupies a smaller space, so it COULD fight other spiders/cats just fine with a reach of 2 1/2 feet.

da newt
2021-05-05, 08:07 PM
Yes - distances and sizes are wonkie especially on a grid.

0' reach = you must occupy the same grid space as your target
5' reach = you must occupy the space adjacent to your target
10' reach = you can hit a guy if there is only one empty space between you

Also a small Kobold (av ht 2'6", av wt 30 lbs) occupies a 5x5x5' cube and so does a med Goliath (av ht 7'1", av wt 277 lbs), and they both have the same 5' reach.

Osuniev
2021-05-05, 08:17 PM
Also a small Kobold (av ht 2'6", av wt 30 lbs) occupies a 5x5x5' cube and so does a med Goliath (av ht 7'1", av wt 277 lbs), and they both have the same 5' reach.

To be fair, that is the space they control/defend, not the volume they fill :) . As explicitely stated in the PHB :


Space
p191
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5-foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.

A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.

Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature.

da newt
2021-05-05, 08:29 PM
"A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions."

Yes - this was my point, thanks.

Greywander
2021-05-05, 10:23 PM
Also a small Kobold (av ht 2'6", av wt 30 lbs) occupies a 5x5x5' cube and so does a med Goliath (av ht 7'1", av wt 277 lbs), and they both have the same 5' reach.
Something I discovered is that sizes generally scale by a factor equal to the square root of 2, or about 1.41, so the true size of a small creature should be about 3.5 feet. Since this is too big to fit more than one small creature inside a 5-foot square, I suppose they round up to 5 feet for the sake of simplicity. One alternative I've considered is that a small creature does occupy a 5-foot square, but you can cram them 3x3 inside a 10-foot square.

Another interesting discover is that, if the scaling by 1.41 is true, there's actually a size missing between medium and large. You'll notice that large is twice the size of medium, which is what you'd expect if you jump up two sizes while scaling by the square root of 2. The in-between size is about 7.07 feet tall. As with small creatures, you'd need to fit them into a larger space, namely a 10-foot square, but you might be able to cram more in a larger space, e.g. 2x2 in a 15-foot square. This missing size would also be a good candidate for goliaths, centaurs, minotaurs, and other "larger" creatures that are forced to be medium when made playable.

For the scaling to be "realistic" (frequently not a good goal for fantasy or TTRPGs), then each size step up would increase the creature's size by the square root of 2 (~1.41) in every direction, carry capacity would double, and weight would increase by the square root of 8 (~2.83). Basically, if you double a creature's size, it can carry 4 times as much and weighs 8 times as much (see the Square-Cube Law (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquareCubeLaw)). An interesting consequence of how D&D handles encumbrance is that your own weight never factors in to your encumbrance, so although you weight will scale up much faster, you'll never have trouble lifting your own weight. You will, on the other hand, get to the point where you can't carry an equally large companion (e.g. should they get injured).

I remember seeing someone say that D&D runs on Aristotelian physics, not Newtonian physics, but I'm not familiar with how Aristotelian physics handles scaling a creature up.