Range for Large weapons.

[Aeromyre]

Alright so i have a question, so if a large creature with a reach of 10 wields a longspear, since it is large as well, is its range increased? If so by how much?

[Rothen]

Reach Weapons
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.

There you go.

[Snake-Aes]

Alright so i have a question, so if a large creature with a reach of 10 wields a longspear, since it is large as well, is its range increased? If so by how much?

Reach weapons, by default, double the natural reach for wielders of their size.
So, Large longspear = 20ft

[Ranos]

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.

textextextextext

[Aeromyre]

Awesome thanks i just needed that in writing

[balistafreak]

Reach weapons, by default, double the natural reach for wielders of their size.
So, Large longspear = 20ft

Emphasis added. Just a heads up that no, your dwarf may not pick up the giant's spear and have 20ft. reach, he'll have 10ft. reach with a crappy penalty. All too many (medium sized) people these days try to wield large weapons (with Monkey Grip or some other terrible trap feat) and call it awesome.

[Ilmryn]

Emphasis added. Just a heads up that no, your dwarf may not pick up the giant's spear and have 20ft. reach, he'll have 10ft. reach with a crappy penalty. All too many (medium sized) people these days try to wield large weapons (with Monkey Grip or some other terrible trap feat) and call it awesome.

Although a player i had once used monkey grip to wield a fullblade for 3d8. He was a warlock who actually dealt more damage in melee than with his eldritch blast... Anyways, since he was essentially using an eight-foot sword, it was kind of hard to explain how he not could have reach...

[Aeromyre]

Although a player i had once used monkey grip to wield a fullblade for 3d8. He was a warlock who actually dealt more damage in melee than with his eldritch blast... Anyways, since he was essentially using an eight-foot sword, it was kind of hard to explain how he not could have reach...

Well his reach is only 5 so it would only be a 10 foot range, a large creature has longer arms and therefore longer arms.

[Ilmryn]

Well his reach is only 5 so it would only be a 10 foot range, a large creature has longer arms and therefore longer arms.

Well, yes, but how do you refute the argument "my sword is 8 feet long, why can i only attack enemies within 5 feet?"
Also, due to balance issues, he should not get reach, even though his sword is technically large enough to give him it.
Also, does monkey grip stack? Can you take it twice to wield a weapon two sizes larger than you at a -4 to hit?

[IdleMuse]

Well, yes, but how do you refute the argument "my sword is 8 feet long, why can i only attack enemies within 5 feet?"

Erm, I hate to be the guy that uses the realism arguement, but have you ever tried wielding a long weapon two-handed? I have never wielded anything 8ft long, but I have had a flail about with a 5½ greatsword, and there's no way you'll be able to effectively use it at it's maximum physical reach. In order to have any chance of hitting somebody with a sword, you need to be at least a foot to 2 feet closer to them than your actual maximum reach, preferably more. Especially if they have a shield.

[KillianHawkeye]

Well, yes, but how do you refute the argument "my sword is 8 feet long, why can i only attack enemies within 5 feet?"

Easy. Just say that, due to the inappropriate size of the weapon, he can't effectively make attacks with the weapon's tip. He has to strike with the middle of the blade, and is probably using it more like an axe than an actual sword.

Also, due to balance issues, he should not get reach, even though his sword is technically large enough to give him it.

Of course, since it's not the sword that grants reach but the size of the creature wielding it.

Also, does monkey grip stack? Can you take it twice to wield a weapon two sizes larger than you at a -4 to hit?

I'm pretty sure it needs to explicitly mention stacking in order for it to work like that. So, no.

[Anxe]

Even if monkey grip doesn't stack you can always take Oversized Two Weapon Fighting and start flailing around with two giant swords.

[Aeromyre]

Well, yes, but how do you refute the argument "my sword is 8 feet long, why can i only attack enemies within 5 feet?"
Also, due to balance issues, he should not get reach, even though his sword is technically large enough to give him it.
Also, does monkey grip stack? Can you take it twice to wield a weapon two sizes larger than you at a -4 to hit?

he has a 10 foot reach and that's it, you could give him 15 if you wanted to but i wouldn't

No i wouldn't let him ever wield a weapon for a huge creature. I don't think you could ever wield something that large, you have to realize how large a large weapon is, then think of the large version of that. It's almost like the size of your longsword is cubed

[Ilmryn]

Even if monkey grip doesn't stack you can always take Oversized Two Weapon Fighting and start flailing around with two giant swords.

Technically, you can't. Monkey Grip explicitly states that you can't wield an oversized weapon in your off hand. What is hilarious, is that WotC appearntly forgot this rule, because a npc in Exemplars of Evil breaks it; he fights with two fullblades oversized bastard swords.

[Knaight]

Easy. Just say that, due to the inappropriate size of the weapon, he can't effectively make attacks with the weapon's tip. He has to strike with the middle of the blade, and is probably using it more like an axe than an actual sword.

That's absurd. Half swording might be needed, but even then 10 foot reach is still expected. The tip is going to work every bit as well as the middle of the blade once the thing is in motion. And this is just a large weapon. A huge weapon is even more absurd, and strength can get high enough for it to be within reason to wield, though at a massive penalty.

As for Monkey Grip stacking. By RAW it doesn't, letting it do so probably wouldn't break anything.

[Ilmryn]

As for Monkey Grip stacking. By RAW it doesn't, letting it do so probably wouldn't break anything.

Except maybe realism. After a few monkey grips, a character can end up wielding a 20 foot+ sword with no reach. Monkey grip is sligtly unrealistic even from the start; I think it was mainly intended to let you wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, wich is plausible.

[KillianHawkeye]

That's absurd. Half swording might be needed, but even then 10 foot reach is still expected. The tip is going to work every bit as well as the middle of the blade once the thing is in motion. And this is just a large weapon. A huge weapon is even more absurd, and strength can get high enough for it to be within reason to wield, though at a massive penalty.

No, granting reach just because you took an Ogre's greatclub is absurd. And I was merely showing an example of how you can rationalize that it doesn't. If you don't like that one, make up something else.

[Another_Poet]

I have had a flail about with a 5½ greatsword, and there's no way you'll be able to effectively use it at it's maximum physical reach.

Not true, I work with greatswords regularly. With one hand on the hilt and one on the pommel performing the Scheitelhau strike you get full maximum reach of the sword's length, casting the point as far from yourself as possible and over-reaching any low guard. You do need to hold the sword loosely, essentially letting go with the hand that was on the pommel, and get your hands high to let the sword pivot enough to pull this off. If you were gripping too tight or holding the sword too low you wouldn't have the leverage and that might be why you couldn't do it.

It is an awesome technique. If you have a 5.5 foot sword then you can get 5.5 feet of reach plus the length of your arms plus however far forward you stepped.

However that is real world. In a fantasy world where you are handling a sword sized for a Giant to wield, no, you cannot claim real world physics to use that imaginary sword at full reach. If you want a real-world explanation for why it doesn't reach farther you can say it is so heavy or off-balanced that the person has to fight "from the half-sword" i.e. choking up so one hand is actually holding the sword by the blade. Boom, your reach just got cut in half for real world reasons.

But the best reason of all is rules balance. Realism has no place in D&D.

ap

[Knaight]

No, granting reach just because you took an Ogre's greatclub is absurd. And I was merely showing an example of how you can rationalize that it doesn't. If you don't like that one, make up something else.

Granting reach is probably broken, though that depends on how much the penalty matters (-2 is pretty tiny), and could probably be balanced without too much trouble (make it easier to disarm someone using something unbalanced with a too large handle, etc.), but arguing that there is a basis in reality for only being able to hit with the middle of a sword, or not having a reach advantage when your weapon is way bigger is absurd. From the perspective of balance, it makes sense, not from realism. Though from a realistic perspective using such an oversized weapon should almost always be a bad idea. The only area I could see it being useful is sleeping enemies where you just want to get as much brute force in as possible.

[KillianHawkeye]

Granting reach is probably broken, though that depends on how much the penalty matters (-2 is pretty tiny), and could probably be balanced without too much trouble (make it easier to disarm someone using something unbalanced with a too large handle, etc.), but arguing that there is a basis in reality for only being able to hit with the middle of a sword, or not having a reach advantage when your weapon is way bigger is absurd. From the perspective of balance, it makes sense, not from realism. Though from a realistic perspective using such an oversized weapon should almost always be a bad idea. The only area I could see it being useful is sleeping enemies where you just want to get as much brute force in as possible.

At what point did I mention reality???

My comment wasn't supposed to be realistic. It was supposed to be rational and plausible. I later, in fact, implied that it was something that I just made up.