Wait, Really...?

[Schylerwalker]

Am I getting this right? A diminutive longspear has reach, but a Colossal dagger does not?

That seems a little...strange.

[Keld Denar]

No, you are reading it wrong. A reach weapon doubles the natural reach of the wielder. If you are diminuative, your natural reach is 0. Double 0 is 0. Therefore, a diminuative weapon wielded by a diminuative character does not have any more reach than a non-reach weapon. Notably, 0 reach.

Additionally, if you are using a reach weapon that is sized too small for you, you lose the benefits of reach with that weapon. A reach weapon has to be sized for you (or larger) in order to grant reach. No humans duel wielding spiked chains built for halflings and still getting reach (thats what Kusiri-Gama's are for).

[senrath]

However, he is right about a Medium creature wielding a Colossal Dagger not getting the benefits of reach.

[Optimator]

Yup, that's D&D.

[Killer Angel]

However, he is right about a Medium creature wielding a Colossal Dagger not getting the benefits of reach.

Maybe it's very hard for a medium creature, to use it properly?

[Serpentine]

Aren't there rules for changing the some weapons as the size changes? So dagger -> short sword -> long sword -> great sword? Whether there is or isn't (I don't think it's an unreasonable houserule), would that fix the "colossal dagger has no reach when wielded by a smaller creature" problem, because it's no longer considered a dagger?

[senrath]

It's an alternate rule listed in the DMG, if I'm remembering correctly. I don't think it really solves the problem, though.

Edit: Using that progression, a Colossal Dagger would be treated as a Large Greatsword. Still no reach for a Medium creature. Even worse, a Colossal Greatsword would still be a Colossal Greatsword, and still grant no reach.

Edit the second: Of course, I'm not entirely sure a Medium creature can even wield a Colossal Greatsword, so that point's probably moot.

[Keld Denar]

No. 3.5 doesn't have any rules about that. Here is the entire SRD section on Inappropriately sized weapons:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons
A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon a -4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.

So there is the level of effort change, but all other properties are the same. Keep in mind, daggers are P/S, while short swords are only P and long swords are only S. Scaling up by that progression would dramatically change how the weapon was wielded, which makes little sense from a continuity standpoint. Just sayin.

[MoelVermillion]

Aren't there rules for changing the some weapons as the size changes? So dagger -> short sword -> long sword -> great sword? Whether there is or isn't (I don't think it's an unreasonable houserule), would that fix the "colossal dagger has no reach when wielded by a smaller creature" problem, because it's no longer considered a dagger?

Nothing in that progression list has "Reach" so it doesn't actually solve the problem. Of course if you houserule this progression in I don't see any reason not to houserule new reach rules, the game could definitely use them.

Yeah basically there are a lot of weird screw ups with wielding weapons of an inappropriate size I get the feeling that Wizards somehow thought that wielding a weapon bigger than you would not come up much in game so they didn't think the rules would have to be that comprehensive.

[jmbrown]

However, he is right about a Medium creature wielding a Colossal Dagger not getting the benefits of reach.

What's the size of a colassal dagger, exactly?

[senrath]

Not sure. Length is not listed, although weight is. It would weigh 16 lbs (I think).

[jmbrown]

It wouldn't matter what the dagger's reach was. A medium-size creature wouldn't be able to wield a colassal weapon in the first place just like a medium creature couldn't wield a diminutive weapon.

[RndmNumGen]

Aren't there rules for changing the some weapons as the size changes? So dagger -> short sword -> long sword -> great sword? Whether there is or isn't (I don't think it's an unreasonable houserule), would that fix the "colossal dagger has no reach when wielded by a smaller creature" problem, because it's no longer considered a dagger?

Well a dagger (designed for piercing) is a completely different weapon from a greatsword (designed for slashing). Even if you scaled a dagger up to the size of a greatsword, or a greatsword down to the size of the dagger, they would still be very different - noticeably the grips, which would be very awkward to use. I could see a Large Dagger working as a Medium Shortsword, or a Large Longsword being wielded as a Medium Greatsword, but a Huge Dagger couldn't really be wielded as a Medium Longsword.


In short, I suppose it makes sense for that progression to work as long as it is within one size category. Any more than that, and you should start taking penalties for what is essentially improvisation.

[jmbrown]

The rules for effort using a weapon negate any worrying about whether a dagger functions as a greatsword when increased in size or whatever.

A medium sized dagger turned into a large sized dagger is still a dagger. The only difference is that a small sized creature would need 2 hands to wield and a medium sized creature would treat it as a one-handed weapon. If the large dagger was made huge it would still be a dagger but now the small creature can't use it and the medium creature is wielding it 2-handed. Unless some other transmutation magic is used, it's still a dagger in all respects but size.

[KillianHawkeye]

Additionally, if you are using a reach weapon that is sized too small for you, you lose the benefits of reach with that weapon. A reach weapon has to be sized for you (or larger) in order to grant reach. No humans duel wielding spiked chains built for halflings and still getting reach (thats what Kusiri-Gama's are for).

I'm pretty sure that the rules for using an inappropriately sized weapon say nothing about losing reach if the weapon is too small for you. Where did you get that idea?

[Starbuck_II]

I'm pretty sure that the rules for using an inappropriately sized weapon say nothing about losing reach if the weapon is too small for you. Where did you get that idea?

The rules:
Reach weapons only function when they appropriate sized to you. Thus, inappropriate ones don't add reach.

[Tyndmyr]

Aren't there rules for changing the some weapons as the size changes? So dagger -> short sword -> long sword -> great sword? Whether there is or isn't (I don't think it's an unreasonable houserule), would that fix the "colossal dagger has no reach when wielded by a smaller creature" problem, because it's no longer considered a dagger?

IIRC, Thats a 3.0 thing.

[Fax Celestis]

No, you are reading it wrong. A reach weapon doubles the natural reach of the wielder. If you are diminuative, your natural reach is 0. Double 0 is 0. Therefore, a diminuative weapon wielded by a diminuative character does not have any more reach than a non-reach weapon. Notably, 0 reach.

Whoa, hold up there. Tiny creatures' space is listed as 2.5', which means they have a threatening reach of 2.5'. However, that's not a whole square, so its rounded down to 0'. But a Tiny creature wielding a reach weapon doubles their reach to 5', a whole square.

Diminutive creatures have a space of 1', so they have a threatening reach of 1', and with a reach weapon they threaten a 2' space, rounded down to 0' since it's not a whole square.

[Greenish]

I'm pretty sure that the rules for using an inappropriately sized weapon say nothing about losing reach if the weapon is too small for you. Where did you get that idea?

The Rules Compendium sayeth so.

[Edit]: More precisely, the page 151: You gain no reach from weapons too small to you, you gain no additional reach from weapons too big for you.

[Keld Denar]

Yea, as Greenish specified, its in the RC. Its hinted at in the SRD in this passage:

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.

RC clarifies it completely though.

And Fax, space =! reach

Lots of things that are large (10' space) only have 5' reach, while others have 0 reach. No where does it say that Tiny creatures have 2.5' reach, or that Diminuative creatures have 1' reach. It says 0' reach. No more, no less.

[Fax Celestis]

Yea, as Greenish specified, its in the RC. Its hinted at in the SRD in this passage:

RC clarifies it completely though.

And Fax, space =! reach

Lots of things that are large (10' space) only have 5' reach, while others have 0 reach. No where does it say that Tiny creatures have 2.5' reach, or that Diminuative creatures have 1' reach. It says 0' reach. No more, no less.

You threaten an area equal to your space.

However, the rule I was going to go reference from a Rules of the Game article apparently falls under a "completely unofficial optional rule" clause.

[Eldariel]

A medium character can't wield a colossal dagger anyways. It'd be an eight-handed weapon (Medium Dagger = Light > Large = One-Handed > Huge = Two-Handed > Gargantuan = Can't Be Wielded > Colossal = Can't Be Wielded x2).

And you threaten an area equal to your space if you're Tall; creatures that are treated as "Long" (the distinction still exists even though they take the same space) have 5' reduced reach for sizes above Medium (hence why Hydra, a Huge creature, only has a 10' reach and Horses only have 5' reach in spite of being Large - on the other hand, Tendriculous has a 15' reach and Ogre 10' in the same sizes due to different shape).

[Grommen]

These things happen. My question is why are you picking up and trying to use a weapon not made for your size in the first place. I know it happens from time to time. But you should not be doing it on a regular basis.

I guess I use logic in place of rules. You don't threaten if your wielding a toothpick. And the "dagger" may very well be 20 foot long, but it weighs 16 pounds. Good luck swinging with that.

[KillianHawkeye]

The Rules Compendium sayeth so.

[Edit]: More precisely, the page 151: You gain no reach from weapons too small to you, you gain no additional reach from weapons too big for you.

That's what I get for not reading the RC cover to cover!