My DM wants to nerf reach weapons, what do you think of it ?

[HurinTheCursed]

Hi all,

I play among a party of level 13-15 adventurers in a low magic campaign. We are far behind the standard WBL and our AC is pretty low, the tanks being between 20-25 (except for the druid's circus 25-30). The campaign is pretty difficult and misplays can turn into life or death matters. At the current point, a mini-boss often rips one third of our tanks HP and may one-shot weaker members if they are allowed a full attack or a charge for specialized builds. Many if not most of our enemies tend to be large sized.

The party contains an well optimized druid with its two beasts (which of a charger), a low optimized sorcerer, a well optimized charger barbarian, a mid optimized paladin and a mid optimized pixie scout. The paladin has a very weak L12 cleric follower that will soon leave the group for unknown reasons.
In our party, melee combattants tend to use reach weapons rather than shorter ones if they can use one. So far, reach weapons allowed us to better protect squishies, avoid attacks of opportunities, give more chance to join melee (many close combat specialists tend to limit melee access and charge possibilities for everyone at the same time). Also note the steadfast boots have been nerfed so that it's main feature don't come into play anymore.

Our DM said that he would soon add a rule: Using a reach weapon causes attacks of opportunity from the closer squares not controlled by THIS weapon.
He says it seems just as logical to him as a range weapon provoking attacks of opportunity from nearby melee opponents.

What do you think of it ?

[Extra Anchovies]

That's so little as to barely even be a nerf. Just take a 5-foot step and kill the guy who was right next to you.

So in other words, tell your DM that the rule change is fine. Why? Because reach weapons are fine where they are without any changes.

[Flickerdart]

Ask him it it's logical that a halberd is not a reach weapon, or that you need a feat to wield a spear short-hafted, or that a high level barbarian can fall out of a plane and survive the fall pretty regularly.

If your DM wants to make the entire game logical, he'll have to change quite a lot of things. The game rules are meant to be balanced first, and logical second. Nerfing already-weak melees further unbalances the game with no benefit.

[TheIronGolem]

AoO's from ranged weapons and spellcasting aren't there because they're "logical". Their purpose is to give casters and ranged characters an incentive to stay off the front lines. Ask your DM if he really thinks that any melee characters should be encouraged to do that.

[Brookshw]

Eh, its minor, I don't really see a problem with it. Just keep alternative weapons handy to deal with threats too close.

[P.F.]

Nerf weapons don't deal damage, not even subdual/nonlethal damage; they are for role-playing purposes only.

However, I would ask the DM if the reverse is also true, that a character using a non-reach weapon against an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from a character threatening them with a reach weapon.

[Kantolin]

What do you think of it ?

On the one hand, I do kind of understand - reach is a strong option.

On the other hand, the campaign sounds like one where the PCs are consistently punished for playing melee characters without reach, hence people started gravitating towards having reach. So rather than now punishing people both ways (Take an AOO or take an AOO from the large creature who moves in close!) perhaps making encounters such that they favor nonreach would help. Fogs do a good job of this in general, especially if the enemies are otherwise fairly easy to hit.

But all in all, most people will just need to take a 5ft step away from their enemy and then stab them, which thus doesn't sound like this is doing a lot.

If it does become more severe... well, this actually looks like a good game to play an archer in. Or especially a spellcaster (Well behind WBL? Limits on strong melee? Sold!)

[marphod]

On the other hand, the campaign sounds like one where the PCs are consistently punished for playing melee characters without reach, hence people started gravitating towards having reach. So rather than now punishing people both ways (Take an AOO or take an AOO from the large creature who moves in close!) perhaps making encounters such that they favor nonreach would help. Fogs do a good job of this in general, especially if the enemies are otherwise fairly easy to hit.

I've learned to be wary of games where character wealth is vastly divergent from the WBL standard. Low magic games can be plenty fun, and a good DM will understand the practical differences between a character with decent gear v. one with subpar gear, but that's not a given. Add in nerfing the Steadfast Boots, which are nice (albeit poorly written) but far from breaking power level, and nerfing reach weapons, and I would be worried that this DM see the game as more a PCs v DM game, rather than a shared fun experience.

Quite frankly, this may mean that PCs will just stop using most reach weapons and switch to the few weapons that threaten both adjacent and distant squares (whip-dagger, Spiked Chain, a regular two-handed weapon with Enlarge Person, etc.). Alternatively, they can get means of preventing even adjacent foes from taking AoO or minimizing the impact of an AoO (Cover, such as from an Animated Tower Shield or an adjacent Ally wielding a Tower Shield, greater invisibility and Darkstalker, miss chance from Greater Blink, etc.). Or for even more fun, Combat Reflexes, Karmic Strike, and Double hit, with armor spikes and a spiked gauntlet.


But all in all, most people will just need to take a 5ft step away from their enemy and then stab them, which thus doesn't sound like this is doing a lot.

Unless the DM is fond of small corridors and confined spaces.


If it does become more severe... well, this actually looks like a good game to play an archer in. Or especially a spellcaster (Well behind WBL? Limits on strong melee? Sold!)

And it isn't that hard to make a 13 Cleric, Sorc, or Wizard build into a monster of Melee. Especially since there are a non-trivial number of spells that give them weapons that threaten both adjacent and with reach.

[atemu1234]

Play a God-Wizard, end the rest of the party. Optimize Initiative so you do everything. Kill the party, replace them with Ice Assassins of deities. Something to that effect.

[Renen]

Play a God-Wizard, end the rest of the party. Optimize Initiative so you do everything. Kill the party, replace them with Ice Assassins of deities. Something to that effect.

Exactly what I would (want to) do. Any time I see a DM enforce a silly rule that isn't for the sake of the storyline, I really wanna just break the game. I remember psionics were called broken, and got banned. But chain gating wasn't :smallbiggrin:

[Hrugner]

Ask him if that includes:
-tiny characters attacking from within the square of a character with a 5 ft reach weapon
-characters attacking with a reach weapon who also threaten closer squares with a different weapon
-characters attacking with a reach weapon that does threaten adjacent squares
-large characters using reach weapons
-characters attacking with a reach weapon from behind cover, or partial cover like another player
-characters willing to use their weapon as an improvised club to attack and threaten adjacent squares
-characters attacking with a 5 foot reach weapon who don't threaten a character because they don't see that character


then just keep coming up with more questions till he gets bored of his new rule.

[HurinTheCursed]

The nerf is not huge, but reach weapon don't give that much you could nerf either. AoO were already enough of a problem that most of the group tried to avoid (fly, invisibility, tumble, reach, ride by attack, ...) but our L13 sorcerer who has a great total of 4 in concentration.

Reach weapons are strong but deal less damage and without any AoO/tripper lockdown build, I don't feel there is any abuse that deserves house ruling to weaken them.

They allow melee guys to enter melee more easily and makes them more likely to use all their attacks.
They avoid meleers to provoke AoO anytime they enter melee with the very common large enemies.
They limit the ability of enemy meleers to move around to attack squishies, once again mostly defensive ability.

I don't want to break the campaign, so far it remains fun even if a bit rules-heavy. This is the DM's first campaign, he is not always easy to negociate with thus I made my best to get a RAW game otherwise we would have many more houserules "to improve realism" that would change regularly and target mundane more than anyone else. Since mundane cannot adapt (their feats, equipment...) to each new rule, I would have changed to a caster if the rules were shifting back and forth too often. Such a rule that changed several times and now stayed is that wild shape and the size changing spells were also nerfed so that the equipement becomes mostly non functional.

We've been into this for years now and I value friendship too high to ruin the fun of others to prove my point.
Since it is a written modules for levels (1-20+), the DM is not to be blamed for the opponents choice, there is no punishing from him. Most of us have had the same character for 10 levels and will not change without at least a death (we got attached to the characters, it's hard to retire them before the end of the campaign but death can also be of significant dramatic interest). This is indeed the kind of setting where a druid or a cleric can eclipse to rest of the party.
But unlike most campaigns, partially because of less involved spellcasters players, also because I give more build/equipment advice to players that have weaker PC, the mundane are still very relevant to the party. They might be useless in exploration, they can't end a combat the same way a spell does but in our group melee still matters. The same way, many enemies dish out enough damage to make AoO matter (or have poison or improve grab...) but we mainly fight mundane as well. Many of them being large with no flight, reach weapon became a natural answer. As soon as there are spellcasters, L1-2 spells battlefield control are enough to disrupt our efficiency, cause misplays and endanger squishies.

The druid casts greater magic fang on both of his beasts and venomfire on his fleshraker. Both are large and need room to fight, do does the druid if he wild shapes to melee.
The pally ride-by-attack would still apply so it is a lesser concern for him in an open field. Otherwise, he lacks the punch to avoid being surrounded and his backup weapon is way less powerful than his lance, even on foot. On foot, he will either lose efficiency or take even more damage.
My large barbarian uses things such as knockback to prevent dangerous opponents from harming the group but the guisarme's hole and the low dex (and the steadfast boots uselessness) mean that he will have opponents adjacent to him. It was not a problem so far because it gave him more chance to use all attacks and he could still knockback closest ones. But unless he can reliably take 10" steps (still far from it), he will either have to use a very subpar backup weapon or to suffer more AoO from now.

Now, exotic weapons could be a solution but not for the paladin, some are really better than a guisarme+natural weapons with this rule. But in a feat starved build, the proficiency seems very expensive. Gaining cover would prevent AoO has well but I don't see any functional solutions.

I'd rather see this optional rule for reach weapons into play: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

[StreamOfTheSky]

How is it a "low magic" campaign when the party has a druid, sorcerer, and NPC cleric? Did you mean "low magic item"? The two are incredibly different.

The nerf is stupid and unfair. That's what I think of it. I think combined w/ the low magic thing, your DM just hates martials and you should reroll as a spellcaster. Use summons as your meat shields, they're expendable. Like your DM thinks melee PCs are.

[Nibbens]

Ask him if that includes:
-tiny characters attacking from within the square of a character with a 5 ft reach weapon
-characters attacking with a reach weapon who also threaten closer squares with a different weapon
-characters attacking with a reach weapon that does threaten adjacent squares
-large characters using reach weapons

BINGO! There's what you need. Almost all Large (or larger creatures) have an attack that goes more than 1 square. They have reach, and therefore their weapons have reach. Even if the weapons aren't "reach" weapons, large sized creatures often use oversized weapons. They should trigger AoO's as well when in melee. This ruling could actually be a boon for the Melee characters. lol.

I know having reach isn't the same as having a reach weapon, but if the DM is making rulings like this, then I'd say go for it. Tell him you'll allow his new rule to apply if it applies to the enemies as well.

[TheFurith]

Hi all,

I play among a party of level 13-15 adventurers in a low magic campaign. We are far behind the standard WBL and our AC is pretty low, the tanks being between 20-25 (except for the druid's circus 25-30). The campaign is pretty difficult and misplays can turn into life or death matters. At the current point, a mini-boss often rips one third of our tanks HP and may one-shot weaker members if they are allowed a full attack or a charge for specialized builds. Many if not most of our enemies tend to be large sized.

The party contains an well optimized druid with its two beasts (which of a charger), a low optimized sorcerer, a well optimized charger barbarian, a mid optimized paladin and a mid optimized pixie scout. The paladin has a very weak L12 cleric follower that will soon leave the group for unknown reasons.
In our party, melee combattants tend to use reach weapons rather than shorter ones if they can use one. So far, reach weapons allowed us to better protect squishies, avoid attacks of opportunities, give more chance to join melee (many close combat specialists tend to limit melee access and charge possibilities for everyone at the same time). Also note the steadfast boots have been nerfed so that it's main feature don't come into play anymore.

Our DM said that he would soon add a rule: Using a reach weapon causes attacks of opportunity from the closer squares not controlled by THIS weapon.
He says it seems just as logical to him as a range weapon provoking attacks of opportunity from nearby melee opponents.

What do you think of it ?

I think it doesn't make a lot of sense. Not by logic. Not by balance. I'd note that all your enemies have reach on you and that's likely intended to be that way. So the reach weapons are putting a wrench in the DM's idea of how he wants combat to work. So instead of having fun and rolling with it, he's trying to change rules so he gets his way.

[Kaidinah]

I would say no, don't nerf the only effective option you allow in your campaign.

Though I do find it hilarious that in a "low magic" campaign, a druid is allowed.

[jiriku]

Our DM said that he would soon add a rule: Using a reach weapon causes attacks of opportunity from the closer squares not controlled by THIS weapon.
He says it seems just as logical to him as a range weapon provoking attacks of opportunity from nearby melee opponents.

What do you think of it ?

Jiriku offers two rules for houserules: (a) any houserule should improve gameplay through better balance or greater convenience more than it disrupts gameplay from the trouble required to learn, remember, and apply it; (b) any houserules should either be implemented during a campaign only due to dire necessity to keep the game from falling apart, or else should be implemented only between campaigns.

Your DM's idea fails both of these requirements. It actively damages game balance by hindering weak character concepts, reduces convenience by adding more dice rolls, corrects no serious problem with the game, and occurs mid-campaign, where it may sabotage existing characters. I would encourage your DM to reconsider adding this rule, and would invite him to use houserules sparingly and cautiously until he has many years of gamemastering experience in multiple game systems and feels extremely confident in his 3.5 system mastery.

[HurinTheCursed]

By low magic, I meant low on magic equipment (the closest thing mundane has to magic), my bad. And low equipment was implied by low WBL, thus low AC and subpar backup weapon.

And all enemies are not big, a bit more than half are and very few use reach weapons. So opponents would hardly feel a change (since they don't have a ring of non controlled squares), except if by the same logic, using any type of weapon to attack provocks AoO from threatening opponents located in unthreatened squares.


Add in nerfing the Steadfast Boots, which are nice (albeit poorly written) but far from breaking power level, and nerfing reach weapons, and I would be worried that this DM see the game as more a PCs v DM game, rather than a shared fun experience.
Our DM is also used to competitive board games as Descent where one DMs against a group of adventurers. He would sometimes "cheat" on our characters habits (you forgot to say you attached your animated shield / put your eternal torch over your clothes / ... this morning) to give more time to a boss. But at the same time, he doesn't weep for dead opponents and doesn't actively try to focus and kill adventurers, it just happens.
I think he just wants entertaining fights, maybe he believes reach makes combat less entertaining because it's too strong or too illogical ? And then he adds a rule that will slow down a slow game, to fix something very low in the priorities of fixing, that's a bad design IMO.

As you suggested, I should try to talk with him to understand his motives. To me, balance comes before logic, one shouldn't be objet to martial prowess when magic users can throw fireballs by level 5 or revieve dead people by level 9. After all, high level D&D leans more toward Dragonball Z level of power than to Lord of the Rings, Star Wars or Harry Potter.