Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Winnipeg

    Default Would this be broken?

    Simple question. Would a feat that allowed someone to fight with a reach weapon against a target at 5ft be broken?

    Basically, it would allow any reach weapon like a glave be used like the spiked chain, so I don't think it would, but I might be missing something.
    Sometimes I think I am the only person that has ever shown interest in Ironclaw.

    PC KILL COUNT THIS CAMPAIGN: 3

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    add a pre-requisit feat or two

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    I wish I knew...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    There was an Exotic Weapon called a Duom that was a D8 or D10 polearm that could be used against people 5 ft away from you. Basically, it had back-spikes that could be used to poke your opponent in the back.

    So, make it an exotic weapon, with appropriate penalties for not having the proper EWP feat, and have fun.

    OR, if you truely want to do that with ALL polearms, I'd say that would be far too powerful for a single feat. I can just think of all the broken-ness that would ensue...
    Quote Originally Posted by The Underlord View Post
    All hail great Shneekeythulhu! Ia Ia Shneeky fthagn
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quite possibly, the best rebuttal I have ever witnessed.
    Joker Bard - the DM's solution to the Batman Wizard.
    Takahashi no Onisan - The scariest Samurai alive
    Incarnum and YOU: a reference guide
    Soulmelds, by class and slot: Another Incarnum reference
    Multiclassing for Newbies: A reference guide for the rest of us

    My homebrew world in progress: Falcora

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Canada

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    I swear there's a feat for this.

    I think it was Monkey Grip, where you could use a Reach weapon against adjacent targets, but took a -4 to hit.
    Jeff

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yuki Akuma's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Land of Angles

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    How about...

    Close-Quarter Fighting [General]
    You are adept at using reach weapons in tight quarters.
    Prerequisite: Dex 13, base attack bonus +8
    Benefit: You can use a weapon with reach against adjacent foes. You must have at least five feet of open space (that is, no solid obstructions like a wall) behind you in order to gain the benefits of this feat.
    Special: A Fighter may choose this feat as a special bonus feat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    I swear there's a feat for this.

    I think it was Monkey Grip, where you could use a Reach weapon against adjacent targets, but took a -4 to hit.
    ...WHy do so many people completely misunderstand Monkey Grip? It lets you wield weapons that are too large for you without penalty. It functions exactly like the Goliath/Half-Giant racial ability Powerful Build.
    There's no wrong way to play. - S. John Ross

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeo View Post
    Man, this is just one of those things you see and realize, "I live in a weird and banal future."

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, MN

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    I doubt it, just make a Dex requirement and maybe a strenght one too (it would be unbalanced)

    Also I think the person shouldn't be able to if flanked or up agaisnt a wall or any other sort of circumstance that would mean the extra lenght of the weapon that must now be behind the fighter would hit something.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Winnipeg

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    The close-quater feat suggested by Yuki might work, but the way he has it, there is no advantage to taking it. If there is nothing behind him, what is to stop the fighter from taking a five foot step back to make his full attack.

    And I don't think it would not be too broken as the spiked chain already has that ability, but Beelzebub might be right when he says there is need for prerequisit feats.
    Sometimes I think I am the only person that has ever shown interest in Ironclaw.

    PC KILL COUNT THIS CAMPAIGN: 3

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Titan in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    I've seen similar abilities put into a couple of pole-arm based Prestige classes, but not as a separate feat. Since EWP gets you spiked chain, I don't think it's unbalanced for one feat to give you the ability to do this with another reach weapon. I've already house-ruled the use of the haft/butt end of the pole-arm as an improvised weapon in close quarters.

    A dex requirement 13+ seems appropriate. If you want to avoid creating a 25' diameter kill zone from attacks of opportunity, you could also shift it so that the player can choke up on his/her weapon grip as a free action 1/round - that way, they choose whether they're threatening close or far, but not both. Limits the power a bit.
    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Azrael's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    There are plenty of reasons to take Close Quarters if you're a pole arm fighter, some of the better ones are:

    - You can make AoO on both the 5' and 10' squares
    - You can attack adjacent foes, even when swarmed or surrounded on all sides.
    - Whirlwind would threaten 20 squares (24 if you count the far corners)

    And guess what? The feat already exisits, as posted by Yuki. There's no need to try to rewrite it. Sure, it's not core... but that wasn't the question.


    Shadowy Goodness since 1892.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Death, your friend the Reaper View Post
    Now we head around under the cover of night looking for threads that will most likely be locked, directing people to the new members thread, and fighting crime.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Canada

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    Ok, so it's not Monkey Grip.

    However, there is an official feat somewhere that lets you attack adjacent opponents with a -4.

    I know this because I houseruled in a feat that let you do it without, initially, and then saw that there was one already.
    Jeff

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    As the feat is currently written, it does not allow you to threaten adjacent squares, only attack into them.

    I think this a great compromise. You still have one disadvantage of a reach weapon (no AoO) but nullify another (no attacks at 5').

    Perhaps you could create an "Improved Close Quarter Fighting" that allows you to threaten adjacent squares?

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    I saw a home brewed feat that allowed the fighter to use a free action to shift grip and turn a reach weapon into a regular weapon and back. This was before swift actions mind you. It was a handy compromise though since whatever you pick at the end of the round affects what happens for the rest of the round, if you choke up you can get those guys in close but you no longer threaten at 10 feet. If you go with the standard grip you can get those guys at long range but people inside your reach now can whack you with impunity.

    WoTC posted an article on reach weapons on their site that I cannot find. The authors suggested taking unarmed strike since you can deliver kick attacks at d6 damage, better then nothing but it allows you to threaten adjacent squares with a reach weapon. Another thing they suggested as an unofficial ruling would be to allow reach weapons to attack adjacent squares if the attacker takes -4 on the attack due to the weapon being poorly built for such a strike.
    \"How dare you! I know evil is bad, but come on! Eating kittens is just plain... plain wrong, and no one should do it! EVER!\" --The Tick

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    I posted this yesterday, but the post got eaten when the boards were reset:

    Complete Warrior contains a feat called "Close-Quarters Fighting" that is completely unrelated; you might want to rename your proposed feat.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, &&for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    Here's another homebrew mechanic to chew on (haven't run it, but it might make some sense...)

    Allow a polearm user to use his weapon as a club/staff within 5'.

    I'd say 1d6 dmg with the strength bonus to damage reduced to none halved. This would represent the fact that the weapon is designed to deliver power to the end, not the middle.

    I realize this doesn't really capture how they were used historically, but for a quick and dirty ruling it might be okay.

    --MR

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Single Shot Zombie's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Undead in Singapore.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    There's an odd feat somewhere (non-core) that allows the halberd to be used as a double weapon, with the blunt end dealing 1d6+1/2 Str mod bludgeoning damage. Not sure about threatened area, but I think that using the halberd like that would make it a non-reach weapon.

    I think it was called Spinning Halberd or something........

    (Btw Yuki, apart from letting you wield larger weapons, Powerful Build also treats you as one size larger for determining checks like bull rush and grapple.)
    I didn't know zombies could be polymorphed........

    Spoiler
    Show
    This is your resident undead coffee addict, Single Shot Zombie, speaking. And I am now resigned to being an undead mongrel for the rest of my (un)natural life........


    (Zombie Dog done by urodivoi; Zombie Student done by Chris the Pontifex.)

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Meat Shield's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nashville, TN

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    I think the feat you are looking for is called "Choke-Up", but I can't remember what book it was in. Sword and Fist maybe?

    EDIT: Feat was actually in Dragon mag, but I don't have the issuenumber. Essentially let you "choke up" (like a baseball bat) on reach weapons as a free action to allow you to attack adjacent squares.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Vampire Ninja Death Squirrel by Jacklu
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Mann View Post
    Frankly, we're a bunch of nerds here, and we like to argue.
    Tosk, Ogre Ranger
    Grishak, Blue Psion Nomad
    Otheym, Warforged Ashworm Dragoon

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    City of Los(t) Angels, CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    As to the original topic, keep in mind that a change such as you're suggesting would make reach weapons all act similar to a spiked chain (except be easier to acquire/use since the chain is an Exotic Weapon (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong)). If you don't have a problem with that, then this idea isn't too bad.

    If you do, you need to really rethink the whole idea.

    If you don't penalize the wielder enough, it will end up feeling like a spiky-chainy world... Some of the suggestions here seem to take that into account to one degree or another, though.

    I haven't had any characters in my games metagame to the chain yet, so I can't really say if the chain is broken or not. I have seen it mentioned a bunch of times here though...

    Anyhow, something to think about.

    My 2 yen,

    Game on!

    Akio
    Never come between a woman and her Warjacks. - Lesson learned from facing off with Major Victoria Haley against her sister, the War-Wraith Deneghra.



    Avatar by The Stoney One, Honorary Knight of Cygnar.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Seffbasilisk's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    PA these days
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yuki Akuma
    ...WHy do so many people completely misunderstand Monkey Grip? It lets you wield weapons that are too large for you without penalty. It functions exactly like the Goliath/Half-Giant racial ability Powerful Build.

    Actually monkey grip comes with a -2 penalty. ;D
    Life is a gamble, roll the dice. If your life is like cards, rig the deck.

    "Boy, sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don'tchya think?" -Jayne
    Greatest number of kills In Valhalla Round 1 with Hsams Goht


  19. - Top - End - #19
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    St. John's, Newfoundland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    Ok, so it's not Monkey Grip.

    However, there is an official feat somewhere that lets you attack adjacent opponents with a -4.

    I know this because I houseruled in a feat that let you do it without, initially, and then saw that there was one already.

    It was in Dragon last year, Jeff. There was an article "All Abour Polearms that had it.

    Edit: Fixed broken tags
    Gaming Nirvana

    My games:
    The Age of Worms IC/OoC
    The Scarred Lands IC/OoC

    My Homebrew:
    The Serial Killer

    My Characters:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Hengist Magnusson, Huntsman, Woodsman, Norseman.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Canada

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    Quote Originally Posted by Torger
    It was in Dragon last year, Jeff. There was an article "All Abour Polearms that had it.
    Aye, I see it now. Couldn't remember properly... saw it in the Candlekeep compilations.

    Shorten Grip, from DR331. Can attack adjacent enemies with a reach weapon (but not an Awl Pike) with a -2 penalty.
    Jeff

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Gralamin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2005

    Default Re: Would this be broken?

    hmm sounds like an intresting feat, it would make playing with a reach weapon funer

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •