One Handed Reach weapons

[Yogibear41]

Are their any one handed reach weapons other than the lame whip that only does 1d3 nonlethal damage?

[Techwarrior]

Kusari-gama (DMG)
It's a light version of the spiked chain.

[kardar233]

Also the Spinning Sword from Secrets of Sarlona, which is a one-handed version of the spiked chain.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Whips also do not function like reach weapons anyways. Powerful build will let you use reach weapons one handed, although at a penalty.

[gallagher]

The lance has reach and is one handed if you are mounted

[JaronK]

Whips also do not function like reach weapons anyways. Powerful build will let you use reach weapons one handed, although at a penalty.

No, it does not do that.

JaronK

[Greenish]

Also the Spinning Sword from Secrets of Sarlona, which is a one-handed version of the spiked chain.Well, not exactly. Spinning sword isn't a tripping weapon, doesn't give bonus to disarm, has a better crit range, and can be worn as a belt.

[One Step Two]

The Blade whip from the Arms and Equipment guide, and Complete warrior, 1d6 lethal damage. Whip Proficency covers it's use too.

[ZamielVanWeber]

No, it does not do that.

JaronK


A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size category larger without penalty.

Large characters can use medium two handed weapons one handed. Powerful build extends that to the wielder. If you want to argue that it does not, then large size clearly will.

[animewatcha]

Unfortunately, size of the weapon and effort to wield are different things. Didn't FAQ or something explain this a bit. I think the example used was an ogre or something.

[Greenish]

Well, technically, Powerful Build doesn't change the effort (the "handedness") of the weapon, so while a goliath could wield, say, a large longsword, it would be as a two-handed weapon, they just wouldn't take the penalties. By extension, a two-handed medium weapon would still be two-handed for them.

Mind, I have never seen it ruled that way, but as far as I can tell it's the RAW.


And, of course, you don't gain reach from weapons not sized for you.

[ZamielVanWeber]

And, of course, you don't gain reach from weapons not sized for you.

I cannot find that on the SRD. Neither the rules for reach weapons nor inappropriate size appear to mention it.

[Greenish]

I cannot find that on the SRD. Neither the rules for reach weapons nor inappropriate size appear to mention it.Rules Compendium page 151. Actually now that I check it, it just says a reach weapon too small for you grants you no reach, hmm.

[ZamielVanWeber]

That is... Horiffically worded. And under the somewhat zany primary source rules, does the Rules Compendium trump the PHB?

[Hylas]

Rules Compendium page 151. Actually now that I check it, it just says a reach weapon too small for you grants you no reach, hmm.

Makes sense. Otherwise you could use small reach weapons as a medium sized character.

[Greenish]

That is... Horiffically worded. And under the somewhat zany primary source rules, does the Rules Compendium trump the PHB?Rules Compendium says it does, PHB says it doesn't, primary source rules say PHB gets to say that, if I got the argument right.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Makes sense. Otherwise you could use small reach weapons as a medium sized character.

And they would function like reach weapons except less damage and a -2 to hit in return for a shield. Small and medium share a threatened area, so their reach weapons function identically and you end up sacrifcing substantial long term damage for a boost to AC. That actually seems balanced to me.

Edit: it appears that PHB has it anyways, so there is an option.

[TuggyNE]

That is... Horiffically worded. And under the somewhat zany primary source rules, does the Rules Compendium trump the PHB?

It either does, or is useless. Pick your poison. (It explicitly claims to override, but, as Greenish said, is not technically allowed to even make that claim to begin with).

Yeah, rule precedence rules are pretty messed up. :smallsigh:

[ZamielVanWeber]

Somewhat was a generous word choice there. I think it would be best to chalk up the entire mess to YMMV. You do suffer off size penalties and your damage die will drop a step, but you get to wield a shield. Or you cannot do it at all.

[Greenish]

Now kobolds, they offer an interesting addition. Their Slight Build allows them to wield smaller weapons without penalties, so, are we to say that Tiny weapons aren't too small for them? If so, they could wield Tiny longspears one-handed and thus gain reach.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I believe reach weapons double the reach of the size category that they are meant for. I do not remember if tiny have reach, but I believe that they do not, so a tiny reach weapon would threaten as per a medium creature.

[Keld Denar]

It is kinda in the SRD.


A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

From this we can kinda garner that a reach weapon must be sized appropriately for the character. This is echoed by the RC, meaning that there is no conflict between the rules and that the RC is merely acting as clarification for really crappy rules text.

[ZamielVanWeber]

That example serves to illustrate how a large reach weapon works, as opposed to a medium One. The only implication here is that it may not work identically. A large creature wielding a medium reach weapon would have reach 10-15, as opposed to large's 15-20. This satisfies the PHB's RAW and that implication.

[TuggyNE]

That example serves to illustrate how a large reach weapon works, as opposed to a medium One. The only implication here is that it may not work identically. A large creature wielding a medium reach weapon would have reach 10-15, as opposed to large's 15-20. This satisfies the PHB's RAW and that implication.

That would be a plausible houserule if all you ever knew was Core, but why bother?

[Ashtagon]

Am I a bad person for giggling when I saw the thread title?

Serious answer: Realistically, spears should have this quality.

[Panzerbjorn]

Seriously, Spartan... spear in one hand shield in the other...

[Greenish]

Seriously, Spartan... spear in one hand shield in the other...The best houserule for this I've heard is that with martial weapon proficiency, you can treat the longspear as one-handed weapon. It works much like the bastard sword (two-handed for martial, one-handed for exotic), only a step down.

Of course, a spear and shield still isn't that great beyond the lowest levels, but on the other hand, that's where most of the NPCs are anyway.

[Deophaun]

Rules Compendium says it does, PHB says it doesn't, primary source rules say PHB gets to say that, if I got the argument right.
Primary source rules say no such thing. The only thing that determines what is a primary source is its topic and text versus table. The primary source ruling then lists examples comparing the PHB to the DMG and the MM. It gives us nothing to go on besides topic precedence for handling what trumps what when other books are included, and we all know how reliable WotC's examples are.

[andromax]

Well, Strongarm bracers let you use a reach weapon 1 handed.

You can wield a medium 2 handed in one hand.. it's still considered appropriately sized. You take a -2 penalty on attack, you gain reach.

[Curmudgeon]

Primary source rules say no such thing. The only thing that determines what is a primary source is its topic and text versus table. The primary source ruling then lists examples comparing the PHB to the DMG and the MM.
Huh? Those aren't just examples; those are definitely rules establishing a game-wide hierarchy. I've quoted the whole PSER. See, for instance, the bolded sentence.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. The core books aren't just related to each other, but stated to be primary sources for the referenced topics. Anything which isn't a primary source is a secondary source, and the primary source is always correct in resolving disagreements. "Rules for playing the game" is the domain of Rules Compendium, and the primary source there is Player's Handbook.

That said, Keld Denar is entirely right about this particular topic.

It is kinda in the SRD.

From this we can kinda garner that a reach weapon must be sized appropriately for the character. This is echoed by the RC, meaning that there is no conflict between the rules and that the RC is merely acting as clarification for really crappy rules text.
The same text is in the Player's Handbook; see page 113. A reach weapon has to be of the appropriate size to give reach.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The same text is in the Player's Handbook; see page 113. A reach weapon has to be of the appropriate size to give reach.

I am looking at it right bow. All Keld used was a single line, in an example, out of context and made implications from it. The PHB never says that it must be of appropriate size.

[Curmudgeon]

The PHB never says that it must be of appropriate size.
It says if you wield a reach weapon of the appropriate size you gain reach. It doesn't explicitly say that if you wield a reach weapon of inappropriate size you don't gain reach, but that's the reasonable inference. Rules Compendium makes that inference into an explicit statement: a too-small reach weapon never grants reach.