Why Wouldn't You Use a Reach Weapon?

[Gale]

I’ve been wondering lately if there was any reason for a melee character not to use a reach weapon. In most instances it seems a non-reach weapon would be inferior as it hinders the player’s ability to take attacks of opportunity. The obvious drawback of most reach weapons is being unable to take adjacent enemies, but armor spikes and gauntlets generally resolve this issue. I like the idea of equipping a character with a giant sword or a greataxe but it’s always seemed like an unwise decision.

In my head the guisarme is always a better option than the greatsword, but is this actually true?

[Troacctid]

Because non-reach weapons deal more damage.

[Ratatoskir]

Fighting in any situation where you can't 5ft step (massive battles, difficult terrain, enclosed areas) would severely limit your ability to attack someone next to you. If you absolutely need to hold something most reach weapons will be difficult to use with only one hand. Reach weapons tend to use wooden hafts, some opponents may have abilities that can only target wood. Also, the damage die tends to be smaller on a reach weapon that its close quarters equivalent.

[daremetoidareyo]

Also, not all decisions in the game are based on mechanical advantage. Someone could honestly enjoy being a dude who uses a rapier. Someone could enjoy the mental image of smashing things with a giant studded club. Not everyone is necessarily playing for the advantage and instead enjoys simmering in those moments where their hero brandishes their goblin slaying pick ax and points at the nastiest hobgoblin on the field, and mouths the nastiest diatribe anyone could ever be exposed to in their final moments of life before charging.

Spiked chains are great and all, but they usually come attached to a certain type of guy that you don't want to be associated with. "Spiked chain guy" is what I tend to call them. It doesn't mean much unless you've played in a game with a spiked chain guy.

Not all guys whose PCs use spiked chains are spiked chain guys, but most spike chain guys make themselves severely well known.

Don't spiked chain guy all over other people's weapon choices. Sword and board dudes aren't like that. Axefrenzyheads aren't like that.

And If I'm totally honest, I really have a hard time imagining how spiked chains would actually be effective against anything. So maybe all of this is projection on my part, and if that's the case, I'm sorry. I'm totally being a spiked chain guy right now.

I hope you forgive me.

But seriously though, spiked chain guys as a group? Kinda preachy.

[Der_DWSage]

Let's not forget the crit-fishers and dual-wielders in all this, either. Reach Weapons are all two-handed, and while that's great for most things, sometimes you want to have multiple weapons at hand, and hit an opponent with both of them. The only one-handed reach weapon I can think of is the whip, which...has issues.

That said, if you're using a two-handed weapon anyway, than a reach weapon (And a gauntlet for close-quarters combat) is in fact a winner in most cases.

[ManicOppressive]

Because your DM (me) will make you regret that spiked chain, you flavor of the patch using ****.

It's the same reason people play classes that aren't Wizard, Druid, or Cleric. Sometimes you've just gotta do something interesting that makes your character more fun.

[Vizzerdrix]

Let's not forget the crit-fishers and dual-wielders in all this, either. Reach Weapons are all two-handed, and while that's great for most things, sometimes you want to have multiple weapons at hand, and hit an opponent with both of them. The only one-handed reach weapon I can think of is the whip, which...has issues.

That said, if you're using a two-handed weapon anyway, than a reach weapon (And a gauntlet for close-quarters combat) is in fact a winner in most cases.

DMG has a fairly good one handed reach weapon.

[Twurps]

DMG has a fairly good one handed reach weapon.

Kusari Gama: It's the weapon that puts every 'spiked chain guy' to shame. al the pro's of a spiked chain, with the use of just 1 hand!

[Flickerdart]

I like the idea of equipping a character with a giant sword or a greataxe but it’s always seemed like an unwise decision.
You can always refluff a halberd as a greataxe so ridonkulously huge it's hard to hit things closer than a parking space away with it. Think Cloud's buster sword, but an axe.

[Khedrac]

You can always refluff a halberd as a greataxe so ridonkulously huge it's hard to hit things closer than a parking space away with it. Think Cloud's buster sword, but an axe.
A halberd is not a reach weapon. There's a reach axe in Races of Stone - I think its the "Long Axe"

[WeaselGuy]

To note, if you have the room for the feat, Short Haft from PHB2 is worth looking at.


You have trained in polearm fighting alongside your comrades in arms, sometimes reaching past them while they shield you, and sometimes shielding them while they attack from behind you.
Requirements: Proficiency with a reach weapon, Weapon Focus with a reach weapon, base attack bonus +3
Benefit: As a swift action, you can choose to lose the benefit of wielding any reach weapon other than a spiked chain or a whip. In return, you can use that weapon to threaten and attack spaces adjacent to you. With another swift action, you can give up this feat's benefit in order to regain the use of your weapon's superior reach.

[Deadline]

And If I'm totally honest, I really have a hard time imagining how spiked chains would actually be effective against anything. So maybe all of this is projection on my part, and if that's the case, I'm sorry. I'm totally being a spiked chain guy right now.

I'm guessing it would look something like how a Meteor Hammer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxPO6nwQvxY) is used. Or really, any of the martial arts soft weapons (they all seem to have similar movements). How one would do it without protective gear on the areas of the body used to redirect the weapon though is beyond me. I'd expect any spiked chain user to wear gloves, a gorget, greaves, and covering on their upper arms and elbows.

[Flickerdart]

How one would do it without protective gear on the areas of the body used to redirect the weapon though is beyond me.
It's a fantasy game. If you wanted, you could take Prehensile Tail, then manifest graft weapon, and wield a spiked chain with your butt.

[Pex]

I like using a shield. I'd want the AC. I don't care if I never shield bash, take no feats to use the shield as a weapon, and only ever use it for the +2 AC plus whatever magical shield I get. Of course my character would still get hit, but he's missed just as well. Every +1 to AC counts and has made a difference.

I don't always use a shield. Sometimes I fancy doing the gobs of damage a two-handed weapon brings. I could use a reach weapon, but I just like the baseness of rolling 2d6 for a greatsword, pure game-mechanical fun.

In my group we just lump it when a creature has reach and we don't. Someone takes the AoO. Sometimes someone just goes for the reach weapon or a magical buff to get it is fine. Reach is nice to have, but it hasn't been an absolute necessary thing in our games.

[WeaselGuy]

I remember a campaign I was in one time, where we were playing ridiculously low-op characters, and the DM wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. The scenario when something along the lines of us (a pretty standard low level group consisting of a cleric, a paladin, a ranger, a fighter and a rogue) dungeon-diving some kobold infested tunnels. At one point, we end up holding down this particular choke point and just kept killing kobolds as they ran down the hall at us. The fighter and the paladin greatsword-cleaved swathes of them, the cleric used his longspear from the second rank to stab others, and I, the ranger, shot around the party into the mass of tiny fodder-kin. It eventually got to the point where there was a veritable mountain of dead kobolds providing difficult terrain for the live kobolds to climb over in an attempt to get at us. At that point, we had all dropped out primary weapons and were using longspears to stab the kobolds as they came over the top.

About the only reason why this tactic worked was because I'm pretty sure the DM was stoned at the time, and we were all like level 4, against these CR 1/4 kobolds.

Still stands out in my memories of D&D though, as an overall entertaining session.

[Willie the Duck]

reasons:

1) you can't afford to enchant both polearm and spiked armor up to +x.
2) spiked chains aren't available in your game.
3) lots of skeletons in game world.
4) DM uses lots of terrain and other effects that make constant 5' step withdraw strategy ineffective.
5) No magic item shops. DM hands out magic weapons of random types. Not a great idea to put all your eggs in one very specific (feat intensive) basket.
6) Do not have the massive number of feats required to make the extra benefits of reach offset the decreased damage of using spiked chain or glaive+spiked armor
7) Cleric doesn't get spiked armor proficiency, now it's spiked gauntlets
8) Low magic healing or propensity of formation fighting in campaign, suddenly sword and board (or even half-spear and large/tower shield, if you are emulating '300') become strategy of choice.
9) Choice

That said, there are clear winners and losers in the game design. That's true of every edition which differentiates between weapons. There are also clear winners and losers amongst classes and build choices. That doesn't mean no one ever plays any of the sub-optimal ones.

[bobthehero]

Because I like longswords.

[Flickerdart]

massive number of feats required to make the extra benefits of reach offset the decreased damage of using spiked chain or glaive+spiked armor
Worthwhile non-reach weapons:
Greatsword: 2d6 (average 7), 19-20/x2
Falchion: 2d4 (average 5), 18-20/x2

Worthwhile reach weapons:
Spiked chain: 2d4 (average 5) x2, can trip
Guisarme: 2d4 (average 5) x3, can trip

I'm not seeing how +5% crits or +2 damage is so much better than doubled reach and tripping ability that you need a "massive number" of anything to make up for it.

[daremetoidareyo]

Worthwhile non-reach weapons:
Greatsword: 2d6 (average 7), 19-20/x2
Falchion: 2d4 (average 5), 18-20/x2

Worthwhile reach weapons:
Spiked chain: 2d4 (average 5) x2, can trip
Guisarme: 2d4 (average 5) x3, can trip

I'm not seeing how +5% crits or +2 damage is so much better than doubled reach and tripping ability that you need a "massive number" of anything to make up for it.

Observer bias: Spiked chain guys are often so busy telling you about their spiked chain based feat selection process that you just assume that all those feats are necessary.

[Willie the Duck]

Worthwhile non-reach weapons:
Greatsword: 2d6 (average 7), 19-20/x2
Falchion: 2d4 (average 5), 18-20/x2

Worthwhile reach weapons:
Spiked chain: 2d4 (average 5) x2, can trip
Guisarme: 2d4 (average 5) x3, can trip

I'm not seeing how +5% crits or +2 damage is so much better than doubled reach and tripping ability that you need a "massive number" of anything to make up for it.

Depends entirely how valuable +2 damage is in your campaign, and on how often you are attacking with that guisarme and not your armor spikes.


Observer bias: Spiked chain guys are often so busy telling you about their spiked chain based feat selection process that you just assume that all those feats are necessary.

Exactly.

[Yael]

You don't look awesome at all when hitting like from two meters away.

[Troacctid]

You don't look awesome at all when hitting like from two meters away.

Speak for yourself. :smallwink:

[Flickerdart]

Depends entirely how valuable +2 damage is in your campaign
I have difficulty thinking of a campaign where it is valuable at all. Perhaps one where you never gain XP and stay at level 1 forever?

[Edenbeast]

Me likes club. Anywho disagree take club at face value.

[Curmudgeon]

The obvious drawback of most reach weapons is being unable to take adjacent enemies, but armor spikes and gauntlets generally resolve this issue.
I guess you haven't considered this from a Rogue's perspective.

Rogues don't get proficiency with armor spikes, and spiked gauntlets always impose massive Sleight of Hand penalties with any DM I've known. Also the Rogue's only proficient weapon with reach is the longspear, which isn't very good in terms of critical threat range. Using one means you can't use a weapon like a rapier which is good at threatening critical hits. Because Craven bonus sneak attack damage isn't from dice it gets multiplied on a critical hit, and thus a wide threat range (15-20 with a keen rapier) improves your average damage significantly. Spiked gauntlets are poor weapons generally, so any time you're in range for other useful combat operations (Sleight of Hand, dropping marbles in an adjacent enemy's square, & c.) you'll be fighting badly. Also there's the expense of augmenting both a close weapon (spiked gauntlet) and a reach weapon (longspear); you'll be on average about 1 point behind on your "to hit" numbers compared to not splitting your budget among two weapons. Because most of a Rogue's damage comes from sneak attack, failing to hit is sucktastic.

[Âmesang]

I like spiked chains. I used one for a succubus bard, once, after realizing that the default whip wasn't very good. It was a +5 unholy shocking burst variant named "Thunder Kiss" that raised its victims as zombies. I think at the time I was reading some DC comics featuring the Main Man, Lobo, and listening to too much Robert Bartleh Cummings.

I also enjoy greatswords for the classic feel of 'em and the "raw damage" (also 'cause I'm a big fan of Siegfried and Nightmare from SoulCalibur).

I've some notes for a future rapier-wielding, Improved Feinting duelist using the sneak attack fighter variant; effectively fighting defensively and feinting foes (hopefully) for lots of damage without having to rely on flanking. Yeah, it'd basically be one hit a turn, but that hit should hurt.

Years ago I attempted to stat Guan Yu as a rank 5 deity utilizing a guan dao/guisarme with enough feats to work well with it (it is the he's historically believed to have wielded).

…I don't know where I'm going with this. :smalltongue: I guess, like epic spells, I like to try and have fun with a weapon whether it's optimized or not (and if not, that just gives me something to work towards).

[eggynack]

Depends entirely how valuable +2 damage is in your campaign, and on how often you are attacking with that guisarme and not your armor spikes.
The first is, looking at how low WS is generally valued, worth way less than a feat. The second, well, I think it's worth less than a feat, but picking up EWP does cost only one feat. So, the "massive number" of feats tops out at 2, and realistically is one or less if you look at when these feats are taken.



Exactly.
So, you're really saying you assessed it wrong? Cause that looks like what he was saying.

[amalcon]

Mechanically? No good reasons. It just takes a backup weapon to get back the ability to attack adjacent, and you should have a backup weapon anyway. A point and a half of damage just isn't that much. Two-handed weapons were already the best option for most characters whose weapons actually matter.

Not everything is about mechanics, though, and not using a reach weapon isn't exactly crippling. You give up an attack of opportunity or two per combat, which is basically worth a feat (about the same as Cleave). You can blow a feat on something much sillier, like Die-Hard or something, and still be completely fine in most games.

Edit: This is of course assuming that the rest of the build is neutral. Some characters love reach weapons, like trippers and anyone who can increase natural reach. Some characters hate reach weapons, like grapplers and Elusive Target builds.

[nedz]

The first is, looking at how low WS is generally valued, worth way less than a feat. The second, well, I think it's worth less than a feat, but picking up EWP does cost only one feat. So, the "massive number" of feats tops out at 2, and realistically is one or less if you look at when these feats are taken.

Well you probably want Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip — so that's three feats here.
EWP — four feats.
and then you might want to do the whole Power Attack thing — six to seven feats already.
and then there are further options, but these are less important.

[stanprollyright]

Worthwhile non-reach weapons:
Greatsword: 2d6 (average 7), 19-20/x2
Falchion: 2d4 (average 5), 18-20/x2

Worthwhile reach weapons:
Spiked chain: 2d4 (average 5) x2, can trip
Guisarme: 2d4 (average 5) x3, can trip

I'm not seeing how +5% crits or +2 damage is so much better than doubled reach and tripping ability that you need a "massive number" of anything to make up for it.

At level 1, an extra 2 damage/round is a significant amount for CR-appropriate creatures with singe-digit HPs. Now let's say you're a level 20 Whirling Frenzy pouncing Barbarian with Imp Trip and Knockdown. 5 attacks/round, with an extra attack on anyone you trip with Knockdown and presumably an AoO when they get up, for a total of 7 attacks a round. The damage is multiplied on a crit, and a keen greatsword will crit every 5th attack. So if all your attacks hit, that's 16 extra damage a round, or the equivalent of 4d6+2. Or 1 more health than 2d8 HD with +3 Con.

[Marlowe]

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/d1.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/d2.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/d3.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/d4.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/d5.jpg

[ben-zayb]

Because I always roll Pun-Pun to have whatever reach is necessary. Everything else is just oh-so-inferior to it, so why take anything else?

[ericgrau]

Everyone keeps saying non-reach is +2 damage when it's actually only +1.5 damage. So it's even worse than you might think.

I think in low op +1.5 damage is actually something for a few levels, but still usually not worth losing reach. I mean you have to consider that you are usually the one doing the charging and often don't even get that attack of opportunity. So then in low op it's better to make things dead 10% faster than it is to get an extra attack 5% of the time. Still even then the value of the damage rapidly fades and by level 10 reach is much better. Plus sometimes reach counters reach to help your charges, you might lose initiative and medium or small sized creatures may come to you (less common at high level though), etc., etc. It's very very far from a free attack every round but at the same time +1.5 damage doesn't amount to much either.

So basically in low op and even then in special cases you get a greatsword or falchion. Not sure why the greatsword is such a popular weapon when it should be a niche weapon. Only worse TH weapons I think are the greataxe and greatclub. And I'm not so sure about the greataxe if you can coup de grace fish with it (sleep, drow poison, hold person, etc.)

[Marlowe]

Most reach weapons that don't require a feat to use tend to be some variation on Blade on Stick. There seems to be an odd feeling in fantasy gaming and fantasy literature that Blades on Sticks are somehow common, effete, mook weapons. In spite of the fact that Blade on Stick (and its thrown cousins) are the most common weapons in the ancient and medieval world. Precisely because they're simple and effective.

In fact; that may be WHY people look down on them. They're the weapons of a soldier. And most PCs don't think of themselves as soldiers but as heroes. And heroes, of course, need something they can pose with dramatically, sling around flashily, and drop after getting impaled by Hobgoblin Longspearmen # 17, 24, 28, 37, and 42 while trying to get within sword range tragically.

I have to admit, the statistical advantages of one weapon over another is less important to me than whether I can use it while hanging from a rope, climbing a ladder, holding a lantern, or tumbling under a table, so I usually just wind up using a basic longsword a lot of the time. If cruel and unusual architecture isn't going to be an issue then sign me up for one-a-them Blade on Sticky things.

[Lagren]

How about "Because you are a bear"? :smallbiggrin:

[AvatarVecna]

1. Because I'm a caster, and I fight with spells.

2. Because I'm a Druid, and I fight in wild shape.

3. Because I'm a Rogue with neither the proficiency to wield such a weapon nor the spare feats to do so.

4. Because I'm a traditionalist, and wish to use a more classically heroic two-handed weapon.

5. Because I want to use a shield.

6. Because I want to dual-wield.

7. Because I want to have a hand free in case I need to climb, or hold something, or anything else that might require a free hand while engaging in melee.

8. Because effects that increase a weapon's size (or effective size) are better on the Greatsword/Greataxe.

9. Because I'm an optimizer, and if I care about being relevant in combat, I don't bother trying to become skilled with arms and armor.

10. Because I'm one of those Spiked Chain Guys, spreading The Lord's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0216.html) holy gospel.

And finally, the best reason ever: Because the guy in the store was fresh out of everything. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0136.html)

[Randomocity132]

Spiked chains are great and all, but they usually come attached to a certain type of guy that you don't want to be associated with. "Spiked chain guy" is what I tend to call them. It doesn't mean much unless you've played in a game with a spiked chain guy.

Not all guys whose PCs use spiked chains are spiked chain guys, but most spike chain guys make themselves severely well known.

Don't spiked chain guy all over other people's weapon choices.

I hope you don't mind if I sig this.

[Vizzerdrix]

And If I'm totally honest, I really have a hard time imagining how spiked chains would actually be effective against anything. So maybe all of this is projection on my part, and if that's the case, I'm sorry. I'm totally being a spiked chain guy right now.

I hope you forgive me.

But seriously though, spiked chain guys as a group? Kinda preachy.

oooh! I've seen one being used in a movie. I don't remember what movie it was though, but it was a movie based off a fighting game. Let's see, not any of the mortal Kobats, not Street Fighter. I don't think it was DoA either. Tekken, maybe? Yeah! It was Tekken!


https://oracleoffilm.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tekken03483.jpg

Decent fights with it too.

[Willie the Duck]

So, you'really saying you assessed it wrong? Cause that looks like what he was saying.

Oh. No, I read what he was saying wrong.

[eggynack]

Well you probably want Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip — so that's three feats here.
EWP — four feats.
and then you might want to do the whole Power Attack thing — six to seven feats already.
and then there are further options, but these are less important.
A lot of those feats are pure upside though. Yes, there is some optimization space you're not taking advantage of if you fail to take improved trip and/or combat reflexes, but that's optimization space that the greatsword user just doesn't have access to, rather than space that they make full use of without feats. If you have the feat room to take those things, that's great, but lacking that room doesn't mean you should pick up a greatsword. It just means that you should take the weapon without taking the feats. In other words, unless the feat is making up for some difference between the weapons, it should really be considered pure upside on the part of the reach weapon, rather than any sort of downside. As for power attack, that's clearly just about equally valuable on a greatsword user, so I don't see how it's relevant.

The conclusion, then, is as I said it was. Using a reach weapon costs maybe a feat or two more, and easily no more feats if you want. I think most builds do best going that route, skipping EWP and absolutely skipping weapon specialization, so things work out fine if you happen to be feat starved. There really isn't much advantage to picking up a non-reach weapon, in the end.

Oh. No, I read what he was saying wrong.
Fair enough.

[tiercel]

Using a reach weapon is pretty good on a high-Dex Fighter who specializes in fighting mindless/nonflying enemies in confined spaces and whose DM thinks armor spikes having the same reach as a handheld weapon is just fine.

If you actually have a significant reach melee build, non-mindless foes should probably just:

A) Use Tumble to engage you in melee (if they melee and have less reach than you)
B) Just kill you from a distance with ranged attacks (including spells)
C) Simply avoid you

[nedz]

Well you probably want Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip — so that's three feats here.
EWP — four feats.
and then you might want to do the whole Power Attack thing — six to seven feats already.
and then there are further options, but these are less important.
A lot of those feats are pure upside though. Yes, there is some optimization space you're not taking advantage of if you fail to take improved trip and/or combat reflexes, but that's optimization space that the greatsword user just doesn't have access to, rather than space that they make full use of without feats. If you have the feat room to take those things, that's great, but lacking that room doesn't mean you should pick up a greatsword. It just means that you should take the weapon without taking the feats. In other words, unless the feat is making up for some difference between the weapons, it should really be considered pure upside on the part of the reach weapon, rather than any sort of downside. As for power attack, that's clearly just about equally valuable on a greatsword user, so I don't see how it's relevant.

The conclusion, then, is as I said it was. Using a reach weapon costs maybe a feat or two more, and easily no more feats if you want. I think most builds do best going that route, skipping EWP and absolutely skipping weapon specialization, so things work out fine if you happen to be feat starved. There really isn't much advantage to picking up a non-reach weapon, in the end.

I mentioned the Power Attack set for completeness because reach weapons are two handed weapons, but yes they are equally valuable on other melee choices.

I would also skip EWP and go Guisarme, but a Spiked Chain user was mentioned, and I wasn't even thinking about weapon specialization.

If you are going for a reach weapon though then you should be thinking about basic battlefield control and also an AoO build. There are several more niche feats you can take for the latter but the three I mentioned are the basics and 4 > 2.

[Necroticplague]

Why does everyone keep mentioning two-handedness like it's relevant? There are reach weapons for all of light, one handed, and two handed flavors.

[ericgrau]

You can also hold a TH weapon in one hand, or sheath it to climb. Climbing while fighting makes you flat footed and requires a climb check on every attack. It's also a bit slow for battle. You're going to get hit hard and fall unless it's a super easy surface to climb. Needing to hold an item in a hand is rare, and you can instantly release 1 hand and cast just fine if you're a gish.

Usually I see a greatsword taken for damage, not looks. Damage is a bad reason. If you do it for looks then fine, but that's subjective. Then people should be taking lots of other weapons for looks too, not only the greatsword.

I was comparing greatsword to the 1d10 reach weapons while others are using spiked chain, so I can see why everyone else kept saying +2 damage while I said +1.5. Spiked chain gives a lot of perks for that -0.5 damage. Comparing a 0 feat weapon to a 0 feat weapon makes the comparison way simpler than comparing to a 1-4 feat weapon. Because then you have to ask if the feats are worth it too. They may or may not be, but it takes a ton more discussion. Only -1.5 damage for only reach is much more obviously a good trade 90% of the time.

[OldTrees1]

Reach vs Non Reach

At 5ft base reach, the reach difference is rather small (8 inner squares vs 12 outer squares with both within 5ft of each other).
Attacks: Having a reach weapon would give you the first attack in the 1:1 trade of blows(the lesser of an AoO* and attacking them the turn before they 5ft step).
Maneuverability: Both have a 5ft step to use to maneuver. Non reach can choose between stepping away(out of threat) or pressing closer(out of threat & into reach). Reach only can step back(out of threat & into reach).

At 10ft** base reach, the reach difference becomes more significant. Now there are 8 innermost, 12 inner, 16 outer, and 24 outermost squares. Suddenly a 5ft step is not necessarily sufficient to move from outer to inner (or more importantly from inner to outer). Thus after the initial clash, where non reach moves to an innermost square, either they start fighting without reach or they move 10ft** on each of their turns(provoking AoOs).
Attacks: The initial clash costs* 2 AoOs + 1 non reach AoO***. Afterwards it costs both of them 2 AoOs on their turns.
Maneuverability: Same as the 5ft case but now it is 10ft movement that provokes 2AoOs.

*Actual price dependent on if non reach has pounce
**Scales true above 10ft
***Reminder about upgrading 2 weapons vs 1 weapon. Reach users will choose one or the other which will affect the cost of each AoO.

Conclusion
Attacks: Reach gets first strike advantage but otherwise it is even
Maneuverability: Non reach has more options but both have the default option
Pick your slight advantage, this does not seem to be a major factor to the weapon choice

[Blackhawk748]

Because Weapon Finesse, Shadow Blade and Snowflake Wardance are a thing? Also Reach weapons generally take more feat investment to work properly. With a Greatsword is just Power Attack.

[ericgrau]

Because Weapon Finesse, Shadow Blade and Snowflake Wardance are a thing? Also Reach weapons generally take more feat investment to work properly. With a Greatsword is just Power Attack.

You can power attack a guisarme with no other feats. So then is 1.5 damage all by itself really worth the loss of reach all by itself?

Plus power attack is pretty lousy on its own. Attack penalty cancels out almost all of the bonus damage; or at times exceeds it. You need improved bull rush and shock trooper for it to be nice.

[Bucky]

Conclusion
Attacks: Reach gets first strike advantage but otherwise it is even
Maneuverability: Non reach has more options but both have the default option
Pick your slight advantage, this does not seem to be a major factor to the weapon choice

Reach can try to use readied-action judo to prevent non-reach from full-attacking effectively or make them eat extra AoOs. A focused Reach user can go further and use the readied actions on a triplock, relying almost entirely on AoOs for the damage.

[eggynack]

If you are going for a reach weapon though then you should be thinking about basic battlefield control and also an AoO build. There are several more niche feats you can take for the latter but the three I mentioned are the basics and 4 > 2.
But the fact remains that this is just raising the ceiling further above greatsword, because the guisarme or spiked chain is still better without these feats. Yes, you should absolutely take the feats, but that's because their existence is pure and unadulterated upside. Imagine a world where these feats, combat reflexes and improved trip, did not exist. I am positing that, in such a world, reach weapons would remain the superior option. If you do not think otherwise, then this could not possibly be a reason to avoid reach weapons. This seems to me the equivalent of claiming that lacking sneak attack has an advantage over having it, in that having it makes you feel pressured to pick up craven. That pressure does exist, but it is in no way a disadvantage.

[OldTrees1]

Reach can try to use readied-action judo to prevent non-reach from full-attacking effectively or make them eat extra AoOs. A focused Reach user can go further and use the readied actions on a triplock, relying almost entirely on AoOs for the damage.

The readied action judo(which is controversial as the recent thread on that topic showed, it is also too controversial for me to get into) works both ways(step back vs step forward) and costs the user their full attack.

Both can triplock the other at their preferred range assuming they have the 10ft base reach to prevent 5ft advancement. If the base reach is 5ft then the tripped member stands up(non trippable action) and takes a 5ft step(non provoking action) out of threat and into reach.

Again, in conclusion there is no significant advantage to either side in a 1v1. So pick your poison/preference.

[endur]

I have to admit, the statistical advantages of one weapon over another is less important to me than whether I can use it while hanging from a rope, climbing a ladder, holding a lantern, or tumbling under a table, so I usually just wind up using a basic longsword a lot of the time.

This is exactly it. The name of the game is dungeons and dragons. Try using your spiked chain in a 5' corridor or a room with a 6' ceiling.

[nedz]

But the fact remains that this is just raising the ceiling further above greatsword, because the guisarme or spiked chain is still better without these feats. Yes, you should absolutely take the feats, but that's because their existence is pure and unadulterated upside. Imagine a world where these feats, combat reflexes and improved trip, did not exist. I am positing that, in such a world, reach weapons would remain the superior option. If you do not think otherwise, then this could not possibly be a reason to avoid reach weapons. This seems to me the equivalent of claiming that lacking sneak attack has an advantage over having it, in that having it makes you feel pressured to pick up craven. That pressure does exist, but it is in no way a disadvantage.

Hmm, I'm confused over what we are arguing about here ?

Yes reach weapons are better than non-reach because you have more options, even without those feats. You can still Trip with a guisarme or spiked chain without Improved Trip. However, the extra options include being able to take those, and other, feats in order to gain even more combat options — so the extra feats are part of it.

Reach weapons are more of a force multiplier than anything, as is the feat chain.

[JNAProductions]

Hmm, I'm confused over what we are arguing about here ?

Sounds like the playground I know and love! :P

[Dusk Raven]

Well... I will say, the only time I've ever used a Fighter effectively was when she had a Halberd. Yes, I know it's not a reach weapon, but none of us knew that at the time, and we probably would have houseruled it to be a reach weapon if we had known. Anyway, I took the halberd because I wanted to see a reach weapon used, especially a halberd (though I yearn to see a Bec de Corbin one day), and because there's a feat in... Complete Warrior, I think, that lets you do some nifty (and fun to visualize) stuff with it. Although, I don't consider amount of feats to be a hindrance when playing a Fighter - in that campaign, I played straight Fighter, no PrC, and we went into epic level, and as such I actually ran out of feats I wanted to take, and was actually scrounging around for anything that would make in-character sense, like Indomitable Will.

As for the spiked chain - I imagine it as being like any number of various esoteric or martial arts weapons in real life - certainly effective if you're trained to use them (which takes a while) but not used on the battlefield for obvious reasons. Personally, I wouldn't want to be within 10 feet of a user of one, friend or foe. Anyway, only seen a spiked chain used once, and that was by a Bard of all people. Said Bard was primarily concerned with capital F Fun, and didn't care enough to try and optimize it. Of course, the only real reason she took it was that we were using UA heavily, had the Weapon Group Feats, wanted something different from the party that was also a ranged weapon, noticed the spiked chain could disarm and trip, and took it. And she promptly dropped it for a Ranseur when we switched to Pathfinder, as PF spiked chains aren't reach weapons.

[eggynack]

Hmm, I'm confused over what we are arguing about here ?

Yes reach weapons are better than non-reach because you have more options, even without those feats. You can still Trip with a guisarme or spiked chain without Improved Trip. However, the extra options include being able to take those, and other, feats in order to gain even more combat options — so the extra feats are part of it.

Reach weapons are more of a force multiplier than anything, as is the feat chain.
The initial claim was that you, "Do not have the massive number of feats required to make the extra benefits of reach offset the decreased damage of using spiked chain or glaive+spiked armor," and this was stated as a reason why you wouldn't want reach weapons. I, of course, disagreed with this claim, because the number of feats needed to make up the difference falls somewhere between zero and one. Improved trip therefore isn't a counterpoint to my claim, and neither should it be included in my feat count, because the core of the discussion is whether there is cause to use non-reach weapons.

[Rubik]

This is exactly it. The name of the game is dungeons and dragons. Try using your spiked chain in a 5' corridor or a room with a 6' ceiling.It's a good thing that doesn't present any rules issues whatsoever, then.

[nedz]

The initial claim was that you, "Do not have the massive number of feats required to make the extra benefits of reach offset the decreased damage of using spiked chain or glaive+spiked armor," and this was stated as a reason why you wouldn't want reach weapons. I, of course, disagreed with this claim, because the number of feats needed to make up the difference falls somewhere between zero and one. Improved trip therefore isn't a counterpoint to my claim, and neither should it be included in my feat count, because the core of the discussion is whether there is cause to use non-reach weapons.

That wasn't my claim.

I think I'm just going to park this because we seem to be arguing over crossed points.

[eggynack]

That wasn't my claim.

I think I'm just going to park this because we seem to be arguing over crossed points.
That was indeed not your claim. It was the claim I was initially responding to. See, my post was essentially a demonstration of the scale of the, "You need a lot of feats to make up the distance to non-reach," claim. In positing additional feats, you were essentially saying, "No, you actually need more feats to do that," because that's just the nature of the list you were attempting to expand. So, I was just saying that said expansion was not a valid one. My understanding of the situation is that you thought you were expanding a list different from the one you actually were, or something. Perhaps one relating to that claim of observer bias from awhile back.

[nedz]

Indeed, I think the confusion arose between posts #27 and #29 — when you seemed to be disagreeing with posts #19 and #20 (part 2) and yet posting evidence which supported it. My post #29 was probably confusing since I meant to respond to your 2nd point by challenging the evidence in your first part.

Now that we've sorted that out.

I don't think that the claims in #19 and #20 (part 2) were Observer bias since the extra feats amplify the effect and thus clarify the difference. If there was no underlying difference then the amplification would be equal for both reach and non-reach weapons.

Also the extra utility of these feats, with reach weapons, are another reason why you would use reach weapons. But this is just the corollary of the above.

[Seward]

To answer the original poster. Most of my martial characters do carry reach weapons, but don't always use them, and they're rarely the weapon I toss most of my gold into. All of the characters also used other weapons, often greatswords or some kind of natural weapon or flurry-of-blows routine for close work.

Here is my experience with D&D 3.x.

sorcerer with longspear and truestrike. Ok, he used it.

Wizard. I have spells. For melee, she hit things with her cast iron frying pan.

Strength oriented monk. Weilded a spiked chain without proficiency for a long time just to get some use out of combat reflexes. Did most stuff with a nunchuck or bare hands. When he got a fighter level late he got a vicious guisarme, again to get more use out of combat reflexes.

Telekenetic sorceress. The only weapons she used were tossed at people magically (whirling blade, telekenesis)

Arcane archer. Dude. I'm an archer. A polearm is too awkward.

Pouncekitty Druid build - in human form and in lower levels used a guisarme (she had one level of barbarian). After about level 5 she pretty much lived in wildshape form, coming out only for social encounters.

Warchanter. Dwarf with dwarf waraxe and tower shield. His sister the barbarian/stonelord was the one with the reach weapon.

Trapfinding tank. Had a lance for use when mounted, but normally fought with a shield up.

Dual Cursed Dark Tapestry Oracle. He had a spiked gauntlet he sometimes waved at people to cause a flank.

Halfling Tank - based on the Pathfinder Dervish Dance feat, which requires use of a one-handed scimitar. She takes something like a -12 to -14 to hit and -10-12 damage with any other weapon (she doesn't even have weapon finesse, 5 strength)

Wizard "Arcane archer" - bonded bow, specializes in single target damage. She doesn't even have a spiked gauntlet, although she has a dagger she uses to cut her food that she's sometimes used to flank.

Spirit Guide Lore Oracle - another one who sometimes waves his mithril spiked gauntlet to distract enemies, but doesn't *fight* with it.

Dragon Disciple/Brawler. He hits MUCH harder with his fist than with any other option, although in his baby levels he carried a longspear at times.

Dragon Disciple/Sorceress (blaster/polymorpher-melee). She starts with a longspear to do damage with 20' reach, but if things get close it all turns into claws (and eventually teeth + any other natural weapons she can manage with polymorph). She doesn't carry her spear any time she's doing anything social, which is as often as she can manage. (she dislikes overland travel, sewer adventures, etc). When enlarged, which is fairly often, she is a reach weapon.

Witchguard - bodyguard feats (he could swap places with people as part of move, could never be surprised and his witch that he guarded had a teamwork feat to also never be surprised if she was in 5' of him). Used a silvered lucern hammer most days but preferred his ancestral family greatsword, or sometimes flail+shield to "tank up" and do trip or disarm maneuvers.

Gnome cook pyromaniac alchemist. The only melee he did was to sometimes rage (to reduce his strength penalty) and shove a produce-flame racial spell up somebody's butt as a flanker.

Mongol-Inspired horse-archer. He's an archer. If he was to do any reach weapon it would be a lance, but he's not from the caste that really did much with lances. He prefers one-handed melee weapons so he can keep his bow gripped or his buckler available for defense.

Dwarf Lumberjack. He carries a really big axe, and grows to size large as a swift action if it isn't big enough. When you're doing 3d8+7 at level 1 and can get reach whenever you can enlarge, a longspear isn't that attractive.

Half-Orc/Half-Ratfolk rogue. Uses Claw-Claw-Bite instead of TWF and prefers weapons she can conceal with her massive slight-of-hand skill (sap, sling, silver/cold iron stuff), generally using a whip when reach is necessary for some reason. Reluctantly carries a longspear when doing overland travel or obvious combat runs.

I've got a couple more characters in the wings - one is an elf bard who will probably end up using longbow, sap and longsword, yes, a he's a stereotype. He prefers a buckler and either longbow or instrument in left hand to a two-handed grip on anything. The other is a gnome summoner who will need one hand to work the Flagbearer feat by level 3, and will likely tie up that hand with a darkwood shield before then. While a mounted combatant, a lance would make it hard to coordinate his attacks with that of his eidelon-mount. He'll probably use a morningstar most of the time.

[Seward]

Also and seriously - the number one reason I don't use reach weapons is most of them are pole-arms. They're awkward.

You can't just sheath them, they bump against ceilings. They can't be peacebonded. If they won't let you in the tavern where do you store it?

Every character that DOES routinely carry a reach weapon pays a social penalty for doing so. One reason my monk carried a spiked chain without proficiency over a polearm without proficiency was that it could fold up and store on his back, or slip into the bow slot of an Efficient Quiver.

It isn't an accident that my character most comfortable with carrying one everywhere was a bodyguard by profession (by the time my Monk got his guisarme, he also had official status in his home country as a protector of the local priests that also let him carry it nearly anywhere legally). The rest didn't want to invest very heavily in their polearm, because half the time they didn't have it handy. It was in the inn room, or on the mount or whatever. In campaigns with lots of overland travel (where ambushes happen frequently vs travel being handwaved) and "clean out the dungeon" encounters, the polearms got more use.