Wierd Reach Weapon Ruling

[No brains]

With a reach weapon, you can attack a non adjacent square.

Adjacent ogre attacking me occupies that square in my attack range.

Can I attack the ogre?

Show your work.

[CapnCJ]

Well it's simple, you just.. Err... Hmm.

I'd probably say you couldn't, though i'm not really sure why.

[TroubleBrewing]

You can't attack things adjacent to you with a reach weapon. Try the feat "Shorten Grip" out of Dragon Magazine Compendium. (Note: there is another choice, "Short Haft" out of PHB2: it's a trap. Don't take it.)

[tyckspoon]

If any square the ogre occupies is in your threatened area, you can attack the ogre. It's really hard for bigger creatures to zone out smaller ones like that.

[Waker]

Most reach double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.

PHB pg 113. As was stated, there are feats to get around this particular limitation. You can also take Improved Unarmed Strike, wear gauntlets or armor spikes to allow you to still threaten adjacent squares.

[Zherog]

So... If I understand your example, the ogre occupies the square next to you as well as the one 10' away (because it's Large). Correct?

If so, yes, you can attack the ogre. I'm not finding it right now, but somewhere is a quote that says if you can attack any square the creature occupies, you can attack it.

[AslanCross]

You can attack a creature if any square in its space is within your threatened reach. The ogre is big enough that you can stab his far shoulder. Remember that the characters aren't just standing there like chess pieces; they are ducking and weaving and moving about their space. Attacking an adjacent ogre with a reach weapon can probably be fluffed as an aggressive thrust that causes the ogre to stumble back a bit so that you can more easily hit him with the point.

[Arbitrarity]

Actually, I can't find anything in the SRD specifying that threatening has anything to do with where you can attack. It specifies you can't attack adjacent squares with a reach weapon (barring specific exemptions i.e. spiked chain). However, if the ogre moves and remains adjacent to you, it provokes an attack of opportunity.

But you can't attack it.

I AM CONFUSED.

[Zherog]

But you can't attack it.

Yes, you can. You can't attack the adjacent square, that's true. But you can attack the square 10' away, which the ogre is occupying as well.

[FMArthur]

Most reach double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.

If this actually what it says in the Player's Handbook and is not clarified elsewhere in the book, its errata, or the Rules Compendium, then I think the answer is unfortunately the opposite of what pretty much everyone here seems to think. And it would make sense, if you ask me.

[linebackeru]

You can't attack a creature in an adjacent square with a reach weapon. If the ogre is in an adjacent square, you can't attack it, regardless of what other squares it occupies.

Similar thought experiment: There's a human standing in front of you, and another human in the square behind him (such that the three of you are in a line). Can you attack the human who is 10' away with a reach weapon through the guy in front of you? Probably not. Same deal with the ogre. You can't attack his butt through his chest.

[FMArthur]

Similar thought experiment: There's a human standing in front of you, and another human in the square behind him (such that the three of you are in a line). Can you attack the human who is 10' away with a reach weapon through the guy in front of you? Probably not. Same deal with the ogre. You can't attack his butt through his chest.

Well actually you can because you don't occupy all of the five-foot space and are presumed to be shifting around inside of it to attack people around each other (because I think you can). This is a bit of a silly contradiction, isn't it?

[AslanCross]

Curmudgeon, where art thou?

[FelixG]

You can't attack a creature in an adjacent square with a reach weapon. If the ogre is in an adjacent square, you can't attack it, regardless of what other squares it occupies.

Similar thought experiment: There's a human standing in front of you, and another human in the square behind him (such that the three of you are in a line). Can you attack the human who is 10' away with a reach weapon through the guy in front of you? Probably not. Same deal with the ogre. You can't attack his butt through his chest.

You can attack around the person, gm might say it provides some partial cover but you can just smack them as normal by the rules

[Curmudgeon]

Most reach double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature solely in an adjacent square.

I've added one word to help in reading this, which can be inferred from this longer Rules Compendium quote (from page 150):

Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, allowing the wielder to attack at that reach but not within its normal reach. A typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature solely in an adjacent square.

Since you can attack at that reach, the restriction on attacking adjacent creatures is for those solely adjacent to you. A larger creature occupying adjacent (non-reachable) as well as reachable squares remains attackable.

It's just awkward phrasing, folks.

[kyoryu]

Personally, I'd rule that you can't. You can't attack at closer ranges due to the inability of the weapon to be effective at that range - saying that you somehow hook it around or whatever to attack the back of the creature strikes me as odd.

Curmudgeon - is the second block the Rules Compendium as written, or with your changes?

[FelixG]

Curmudgeon - is the second block the Rules Compendium as written, or with your changes?

That is with his changes.

[Curmudgeon]

Curmudgeon - is the second block the Rules Compendium as written, or with your changes?

I added one word (solely), as stated. The highlighted (bold) phrase explains why I think that appropriately clarifies the meaning.

[kyoryu]

I added one word (solely), as stated. The highlighted (bold) phrase explains why I think that appropriately clarifies the meaning.

Ah, okay.

I stand by my interpretation, then, as it also matches the SRD text :)

[Elric VIII]

Just a thought: Doesn't the fact that an Ogre is a bipedal, large creature mean it technically occupies a cube of 10' x 10' x 10'? Does this mean a medium (5' x 5' x 5') creature can attack its head or upper body in the same way you could attack a creature flying 10 feet above you with a reach weapon?

[Arbitrarity]

I added one word (solely), as stated. The highlighted (bold) phrase explains why I think that appropriately clarifies the meaning.

I agree with this. But this is because I think of attacks as being targeted at squares foremost, which makes AOO's and tiny creatures quite easy to understand.
Also, if I'm hovering adjacent, but above, the Tarrasque, are you going to argue I can't attack it with a reach weapon?

[KillianHawkeye]

Also, if I'm hovering adjacent, but above, the Tarrasque, are you going to argue I can't attack it with a reach weapon?

I think making the creature larger is actually a good way to illustrate the point. Let's Use a diagram. A is the character in question, and Os represent some very large creature.

OOOO
OOOO
OOOOA
OOOO

Based on this configuration, would you still insist that A can't attack O with with a reach polearm? Because it seems to me like he could, even though the two are definitely adjacent.

[kyoryu]

Based on this configuration, would you still insist that A can't attack O with with a reach polearm? Because it seems to me like he could, even though the two are definitely adjacent.

Yes, I would.

The problem is that there's something right in your face, preventing the polearm from being used effectively.

But, that's just how I'd rule it, and people can rule it however they want. The SRD does seem pretty clear in that you can't attack an adjacent opponent with a reach weapon. If you want to argue that's RAW and not RAI, fine, but I'm free to disagree :D

[Akal Saris]

I'd go with the more lenient reading, personally.

[Matthew]

I would say not without penalty, because it seems to me that the reason adjacent characters cannot be attacked is because they are too close. There needs to be room between the wielder and the target for the weapon to be used effectively. Since you can attack a target when another is in the intervening square, then it would perhaps be reasonable to allow an attack with the appropriate penalty [e.g. −4 AB or +4 AC]. An ogre granting cover to itself seems a bit strange, admittedly, but there you go.

[Claudius Maximus]

Well if it's tall enough you can just try to go for the upper squares, which have no "cover."

[Kerrin]

I would say not without penalty, because it seems to me that the reason adjacent characters cannot be attacked is because they are too close. There needs to be room between the wielder and the target for the weapon to be used effectively. Since you can attack a target when another is in the intervening square, then it would perhaps be reasonable to allow an attack with the appropriate penalty [e.g. −4 AB or +4 AC]. An ogre granting cover to itself seems a bit strange, admittedly, but there you go.

I do like this interpretation because it jibes well with reality as well as what makes sense (in my mind) with the mechanics of the game's rules.

[Apophis]

I would rule that you couldn't attack an adjacent large creature, because all parts of it that you could try to hit are within 5'.
I lay a trap for you..
Take a handful of d6s, and set them up so that each on represents 5'. One 5x5x5 cube is you, and the 10x10x10 cube is a large creature. Set them adjacent to each other, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
And another trap...
However, anything bigger than large has parts of the cube that are 10' away, so you could strike them then.

Spoilered pictures in case you don't have dice near you. Why wouldn't you have dice near you?

Spoiler

Show

Here you can see that all parts of the creature are within 5'.

Same here.

Now, with a huge creature, you can see parts that are farther than 5' away.

So you can hit here...

Here...

And on these three.

[mucco]

I'd go with a 5' step back...

I believe you could not attack it, besides. Think about a Gelatinous Cube... no way you're going to stab him with your polearm if you don't step back.

[dextercorvia]

I would rule that you couldn't attack an adjacent large creature, because all parts of it that you could try to hit are within 5'.
I lay a trap for you..
Take a handful of d6s, and set them up so that each on represents 5'. One 5x5x5 cube is you, and the 10x10x10 cube is a large creature. Set them adjacent to each other, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
And another trap...
However, anything bigger than large has parts of the cube that are 10' away, so you could strike them then.

Spoilered pictures in case you don't have dice near you. Why wouldn't you have dice near you?

Spoiler

Show

Here you can see that all parts of the creature are within 5'.

Same here.

Now, with a huge creature, you can see parts that are farther than 5' away.

So you can hit here...

Here...

And on these three.

OO
OOX

The squares on a Large creature that are 10' from reach weapon guy.