PDA

View Full Version : Weapon size and reach



Aez
2007-03-08, 06:05 AM
I'm confused with the weapon size and reach rules. Does a large reach weapon gain 5', does a small one lose it's reach? What if a medium characer use a large reach weapon? A huge one?

Yuki Akuma
2007-03-08, 06:08 AM
Non-reach weapons don't do anything to your reach.

Reach weapons double your reach.

Weapon size has nothing to do with it. It's stupid and makes no sense, yes, but those are the rules.

Khantalas
2007-03-08, 06:08 AM
Well, reach weapons double your reach, appearantly, so, they would still do that, regardless of the size differences between you and the weapon.

I think.

Thomas
2007-03-08, 06:36 AM
Yep. If you're a Medium character using a Large weapon with reach, your reach is 10 ft. Same as using a Medium weapon with reach. If you're Large (with 10-foot reach) using a Small weapon with reach, your reach is 20 feet.

Rigeld2
2007-03-08, 07:36 AM
Yep. If you're a Medium character using a Large weapon with reach, your reach is 10 ft. Same as using a Medium weapon with reach. If you're Large (with 10-foot reach) using a Small weapon with reach, your reach is 20 feet.
Hmmm...
The sentence "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." (emphasis mine) implies that it needs to be the right size to get Reach. Any ideas?

</devils advocate>

Thomas
2007-03-08, 07:54 AM
That sounds like an elaboration or explanation, rather than a rule. Nothing actually states that you are required to wield a weapon of your own size to gain reach. And moreover, nothing states it must be your own size or larger; if we take the passage you quote to mean that the Large character must have a weapon of appropriate (Large) size to use it as a reach weapon, that'd mean a Large character using a Huge weapon (or a Medium character using a Large weapon) wouldn't get the doubled reach. That'd just be bizarre.

AtomicKitKat
2007-03-08, 08:13 AM
I just read that issue of Dragon(sometime last year. Thrall of Pazuzu issue I think). Sage uses the "of the appropriate size" to mean "Sized for you or larger" in order to gain the reach.

Note also that a Large creature has 5-10' reach normally, 15-20' reach(with a 5-10' blindspot) with a reach weapon, etc. When doubling reach for larger creatures, the "kill zone" is from maximum of double maximum reach, to a minimum of the natural maximum.

Nor.| Rch. | Dead
0-5 | 6-10 | 0-5
0-10|11-20|0-10

and so on. Basically, your "blind/dead" spot is where your natural reach is(unless you have a close-range weapon or your weapon is like a spiked-chain, and can work at both ranges). Your "kill zone" is the area beyond that, to a limit of twice the maximum of your normal reach. Think of it in a similar fashion to range increments on ranged attacks.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-08, 08:14 AM
Rigeld2 is correct, bizarre or not....


How do reach weapons work if they are of a different size than the creature wielding them? Say, an ogre wielding a Small or Medium glaive, or a human with the Monkey Grip feat wielding a Large ranseur? What is the reach for each situation?
A reach weapon doubles its wielder’s natural reach, but only if the weapon is at least of an appropriate size for the wielder. Wielding a “too-small” reach weapon grants no reach.
An ogre (Large) wielding a Medium or smaller reach weapon gains no reach from the weapon, and could thus attack foes either 5 feet or 10 feet distant (as normal for a Large creature wielding a non-reach weapon).
A human (Medium) wielding a Large or larger reach weapon could attack a creature 10 feet away (but no further), and could not use the weapon to attack a creature 5 feet away (as normal for a Medium creature wielding a reach weapon). A human wielding a Small reach weapon would gain no reach from the weapon.
The Player’s Handbook isn’t as clear on this as it could be, although an example of reach in action on page 113 in the Player’s Handbook provides pretty strong support: “A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away . . .” [italics added]. While this reference doesn’t mention the ability to wield a reach weapon larger than the appropriate size, allowing such a weapon to grant reach to its wielder is a reasonable extension of the spirit and intent of the rule.

Thomas
2007-03-08, 09:12 AM
Wow, so by RAW, wielding a reach weapon larger than you means you don't get the reach, and allowing you to get the reach is a houserule "in the spirit of the rules" ?

BlueWizard
2007-03-08, 09:20 AM
Do you have a player's handbook?

Khantalas
2007-03-08, 09:21 AM
"I'm wielding a spear with a shaft thrice my size, and I can poke people one nad a half meters away with it, but not a guy that's actually far enough that I should actually be able to hit thim with the head, not the shaft. I must be the world's weirdest warrior."

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-08, 09:51 AM
Wow, so by RAW, wielding a reach weapon larger than you means you don't get the reach, and allowing you to get the reach is a houserule "in the spirit of the rules" ?

Spirit and intent. *shrug*

Add to that that with Monkey Grip the larger weapon arguably becomes appropriately sized.


You are able to use a larger weapon than other people your size.


Not granting reach with weapons that are "too small" seems quite reasonable.

Aximili
2007-03-08, 03:24 PM
Not granting reach with weapons that are "too small" seems quite reasonable.
Until you notice that a halfling gets 10ft reach with that Spiked Chain, but you don't. So, being smaller, and having shorter arms and legs, he is able to reach father than you, using the exact same weapon.
(I'm not saying that it's not like that. It's just silly =P)

Thomas
2007-03-08, 03:42 PM
Yeah, so even the suggested interpretation/house-rule makes no sense. Why does the halfling over there get 10-foot reach with that Small longspear, but you, the half-orc, don't?

Person_Man
2007-03-08, 04:14 PM
Note also that a Large creature has 5-10' reach normally, 15-20' reach(with a 5-10' blindspot) with a reach weapon, etc. When doubling reach for larger creatures, the "kill zone" is from maximum of double maximum reach, to a minimum of the natural maximum.

Nor.| Rch. | Dead
0-5 | 6-10 | 0-5
0-10|11-20|0-10

and so on. Basically, your "blind/dead" spot is where your natural reach is(unless you have a close-range weapon or your weapon is like a spiked-chain, and can work at both ranges). Your "kill zone" is the area beyond that, to a limit of twice the maximum of your normal reach. Think of it in a similar fashion to range increments on ranged attacks.

Correct. Though I'd note that its rare for intelligent creatures that use manufactured weapons to have a "blind spot" because in addition to a reach weapon, they can use spiked gauntlets and/or armor spikes.

Sahegian
2007-03-08, 04:41 PM
I'd hardly consider a dead spot rare, since nearly all the reach weapons have it. Sure if you built your character to use a reach weapon all the time he'd have some way of hitting things nearby, but if you pick up a longspear to use it in some beneficial situation it isn't likely that you have the extra feats or items to hit things 5' away.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-08, 06:31 PM
Until you notice that a halfling gets 10ft reach with that Spiked Chain, but you don't. So, being smaller, and having shorter arms and legs, he is able to reach father than you, using the exact same weapon.
(I'm not saying that it's not like that. It's just silly =P)


Yeah, so even the suggested interpretation/house-rule makes no sense. Why does the halfling over there get 10-foot reach with that Small longspear, but you, the half-orc, don't?

Obviously I agree.

The rule is too simple to account for that "much" complexity.

If we make an exception for small/medium creatures I think it works quite well.
Or we could keep it within one size-category of difference, so the Ogre cannot pick up a Pixie Stick and gain 20' reach.

Aximili
2007-03-08, 07:46 PM
If we make an exception for small/medium creatures I think it works quite well.
For those looking for realism, I'd vote for this one.

For all other creatures, reach rules actually makes sense. The issue comes up because small and medium creatures have the same reach. Make an exception for them (saying that a small weapon increases a medium guy's reach), and it should work fine.

I don't think there'd be balance issues. The only thing that would change is that you could dual-wield a reach weapon. But it doesn't sound too bad.

Matthew
2007-03-09, 06:02 PM
Yes, I think I would be on board with that interpretation as well. Weapon Size is something of a persistant problem in D&D.

Draz74
2007-03-09, 06:15 PM
Obviously I agree.

The rule is too simple to account for that "much" complexity.

If we make an exception for small/medium creatures I think it works quite well.
Or we could keep it within one size-category of difference, so the Ogre cannot pick up a Pixie Stick and gain 20' reach.

Yeah ... because it would be really silly if a Human could pick up a Tiny Glaive and (wielding it as a Light weapon with a -4 penalty) gain reach with it, when he can't even do the same with a Medium Greatsword. :smallbiggrin:

Justin_Bacon
2007-03-10, 02:04 AM
If we make an exception for small/medium creatures I think it works quite well. Or we could keep it within one size-category of difference, so the Ogre cannot pick up a Pixie Stick and gain 20' reach.

I find the distinction unnecessary. Ogres can't use weapons designed for anything smaller than a Small creature.

If you really wanted to fix this, though, you'd do this:

Reach weapons grant a +X bonus to reach for Medium or Small creatures, and reduce or increase that bonus by 5 feet for every step in weapon size. Everyone gets the same reach bonus from a particular weapon. A reach weapon will never reduce your reach below its normal level. You cannot strike an opponent with a reach weapon if they are within your normal reach.

For example, a Small or Medium lance would have a +5 ft. reach. A Tiny or smaller lance would have no bonus to reach. A Large lance would have a +10 ft. reach. A Huge lance would have a +15 ft. reach.

BENEFITS: The rule is easier to explain. It also makes it easier to implement alternative reach weapons with longer or shorter reaches. And it solves the realism problem under discussion. The only messy bit is that there is no reach adjustment between Small and Medium size, but that's already artifacted into the system so there's not much you can do about it.

PROBLEM: The benefits of wielding reach weapons larger than your size are increased in this system.

SOLUTION: Double the penalties for using a reach weapon of an inappropriate size. The extra 5 ft. you get from wielding that ridiculously huge lance is nice, but you're going to be paying for it with a -4 attack bonus.

And that should do it.

POSSIBLE TWEAK: Two-handed and one-handed weapons could be considered to have a reach adjustment of +0, while light weapons could have a reach adjustment of -5 (although, remember, this could never reduce your reach below its normal value). These reaches would also adjust, so a Large Greatsword would have a reach adjustment of +5.

This tweak increases the complexity of the weapon size rules and greatly increases the complexity of running larger combatants. However, it has the interesting side-effect of modeling the popular conceit "getting inside the giant's clumsy reach".

Obviously, you should implement that doubled penalties for using weapons of inappropriate size across the board for the purposes of these rules.

(This is not a tweak I would bother implementing, although it provides an interesting thought experiment.)

CockroachTeaParty
2007-03-10, 05:51 AM
Reach weapons... the idea behind them is so nice, but truth be told, every time I've tried to use them in-game, they wind up being ineffective.

Sure, you might get the occasional AoO a square away, but most of the time, once everyone's locked in melee, it turns into the same old dance:

Take a 5-foot step, attack.
Enemy takes a 5-foot step, attacks.

The enemy doesn't provoke an AoO, because it's just a 5-foot step. So what's the point? Perhaps a rogue using a reach weapon from behind a rank of warriors, or something. And it takes a feat to use a reach weapon 1 square away? How much training does it take to just hold your pole arm higher up the haft?

Gah! *sigh*

And yet... I use them. Just because everybody uses greatswords, and I like to be different. Where's my spiked chain? By the cheese?

Leush
2007-03-10, 06:04 AM
The point of reach weapons is

a) To fall your foe with that one extra AOO as they close in on you initially.

b) To attack other creatures with reach (notably those larger than yourself) without going through their threatened area.

c) Ten Foot Pole.

daggaz
2007-03-10, 06:18 AM
Reach weapons... the idea behind them is so nice, but truth be told, every time I've tried to use them in-game, they wind up being ineffective.

Sure, you might get the occasional AoO a square away, but most of the time, once everyone's locked in melee, it turns into the same old dance:

Take a 5-foot step, attack.
Enemy takes a 5-foot step, attacks.

The enemy doesn't provoke an AoO, because it's just a 5-foot step. So what's the point? Perhaps a rogue using a reach weapon from behind a rank of warriors, or something. And it takes a feat to use a reach weapon 1 square away? How much training does it take to just hold your pole arm higher up the haft?

Gah! *sigh*

And yet... I use them. Just because everybody uses greatswords, and I like to be different. Where's my spiked chain? By the cheese?


Umm.. You have reach. At the start of your enemies turn, he is 10ft away from you (you moved back so there is a square between you, that is a ten foot difference not a five foot difference). The square he is in is threatened. He takes a five foot step into the adjacent square, so he can attack you with a non-reach weapon (now he is five feet from you). Notice, he just moved out of a threatened square without using a withdraw action. Viola! You get an AoO. That is the whole point of reach weapons.

Matthew
2007-03-10, 08:52 AM
No Daggaz, that is not how it works. 5' Steps do not provoke Attacks of Opportunity, ever:


Take 5-Foot Step
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm). You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance.
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
You can only take a 5-foot step if your movement isn’t hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can’t take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#moveActions) for such a slow creature.
You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.

Person_Man
2007-03-12, 10:56 AM
Reach weapons... the idea behind them is so nice, but truth be told, every time I've tried to use them in-game, they wind up being ineffective.

Sure, you might get the occasional AoO a square away, but most of the time, once everyone's locked in melee, it turns into the same old dance:

Take a 5-foot step, attack.
Enemy takes a 5-foot step, attacks.

The enemy doesn't provoke an AoO, because it's just a 5-foot step. So what's the point? Perhaps a rogue using a reach weapon from behind a rank of warriors, or something. And it takes a feat to use a reach weapon 1 square away? How much training does it take to just hold your pole arm higher up the haft?

Gah! *sigh*

And yet... I use them. Just because everybody uses greatswords, and I like to be different. Where's my spiked chain? By the cheese?

Reach weapons can give you a huge "action advantage" on your enemies.

First, in the initial round your enemy is generally far enough away that it has to charge you to reach you in melee combat. If you win Initiative, you can ready an action to hit them with -2 a penalty to their AC, and often deal double damage, depending on your choice of reach weapon.

Second, as long as they start combat more then 10 feet away from you, they have to move through your threatened square to attack you. By moving through your threatened square they provoke an AoO. That's at least one bonus attack almost every single combat, and usually more, assuming the encounter has multiple enemies. That's better then a lot of feats that people often take.

Third, if you've built your Tank intelligently, you've taken the Improved Trip and Knock-Down feats. So now there's a good chance you've hit your enemy 2-3 times, you've foiled any melee attack on their part, and your enemy is stuck 10 feet away from you. When they stand up, they take another AoO from you. If you're a 3rd level Knight (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2), any square you threaten that an enemy starts their turn in counts as difficult terrain. Therefore they can't take a 5' step, and when they try to move towards you, you get ANOTHER attack of opportunity.

Fourth, if your enemy is using ranged weapons, you can close all the way on them and hit them with your armor spikes (or spiked chain, or gauntlets, or Improved Unarmed Strike). If they shoot you, they provoke an AoO. If they take a 5' step back, they're still in your threatened area. You can hit them again, and then take your 5' step towards them. If they move more then 5' away from you, you get another free AoO.

Fifth, if someone in your party is a spellcaster, then they will often cast Enlarge Person on you. So now your reach is 20 feet, and not just 10. This opens up many new combat options.

Sixth, if you're fighting an enemy that has Reach of some sort (most Large or bigger creatures), having reach can seriously help you avoid their attacks of opportunity.

While it can be negated by Tumble, magic, or another reach weapon, using a reach weapon is generally the best (non-spell) way to fight in D&D.