This came up back in 3.5 as well. In that FAQ it was ruled that undersized reach weapons don't give reach. Oversized weapons only give reach as normal.
A onehanded weapon with reach us IMO worth a feat, be it an exotic weapon or a feat for using undersized weapons. I'd point out that lunge gives you reach with a 1-hand weapon at a -2.
|
A medium or small polearm has 10' reach (if reach is listed for it).
An under-sized medium or small polearm does not have reach.
A reduced medium or small polearm does not have reach.
A small character with a small d8 polarm who is subject to Enlarge becomes a medium creature wielding a 2d6 20' polearm.
|
A medium or small polearm has 10' reach (if reach is listed for it).
An under-sized medium or small polearm does not have reach.
A reduced medium or small polearm does not have reach.
A small character with a small d8 polarm who is subject to Enlarge becomes a medium creature wielding a 2d6 20' polearm.
In the case of enlarged people with reach weapons, where do the threatened squares begin? Is it 10'-20'?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A small character with a small d8 polarm who is subject to Enlarge becomes a medium creature wielding a 2d6 20' polearm.
A Small creature with a small polearm who was enlarged would be a Medium creature with an appropriately sized polearm. His reach would be the same as any other Medium creature with an appropriately sized polearm. He would have reach of 10 feet and would not threaten with the polearm at 5 feet.
When applying spell or game rule effects that have subsequent rules elements that are affected, apply the effect and then determine the subsequent rule from that point. In this case, the creature is enlarged to Medium..what is the reach of an appropriate sized reach weapon wielded by a Medium creature?
In the case of enlarged people with reach weapons, where do the threatened squares begin? Is it 10'-20'?
A Medium creature with a polearm enlarged to Large (tall) would have natural reach at 5 and 10 feet. He would threaten at 5 and 10 feet with non-reach weapons; he would threaten at 15 and 20 feet with the polearm.
|
|
A Small creature with a small polearm who was enlarged would be a Medium creature with an appropriately sized polearm. His reach would be the same as any other Medium creature with an appropriately sized polearm. He would have reach of 10 feet and would not threaten with the polearm at 5 feet.
But he's not a "medium-sized creature with an appropriately sized polearm" -- he's a small creature with an appropriately sized polearm (i.e., 10' reach) who is now Enlarged.
The fact that the weapon's damage is different (e.g., a small d8 glaive becoming a 2d6 weapon when Enlarged, as opposed to a normal medium-sized d10 glaive, is prima facie evidence that the situation is not identical to a medium w/medium reach-weapon.
(IMO Paizo missed an opportunity to settle or fix the issue in Pathfinder; sans doing so, and if you think 10' is as unrealistic as 20;, then a good house-rule would be that Enlarged small reach-weapons have 15' reach, i]Enlarged[/i] tiny ones have 10' reach, and i]Enlarged[/i] diminutive ones have 5' reach.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Small creature with a small polearm who was enlarged would be a Medium creature with an appropriately sized polearm. His reach would be the same as any other Medium creature with an appropriately sized polearm. He would have reach of 10 feet and would not threaten with the polearm at 5 feet.But he's not a "medium-sized creature with an appropriately sized polearm" -- he's a small creature with an appropriately sized polearm (i.e., 10' reach) who is now Enlarged.
The fact that the weapon's damage is different (e.g., a small d8 glaive becoming a 2d6 weapon when Enlarged, as opposed to a normal medium-sized d10 glaive, is prima facie evidence that the situation is not identical to a medium w/medium reach-weapon.
(IMO Paizo missed an opportunity to settle or fix the issue in Pathfinder; sans doing so, and if you think 10' is as unrealistic as 20;, then a good house-rule would be that Enlarged small reach-weapons have 15' reach, i]Enlarged[/i] tiny ones have 10' reach, and i]Enlarged[/i] diminutive ones have 5' reach.)
Actually, a small creature under the effects of an Enlarge Person spell is increased to the next size category, so medium. According to the spell, "All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell." Thus, a Small creature wielding an appropriately sized Glaive (a small glaive dealing 1d8 base damage) will perform as a medium creature wielding a medium glaive (for 1d10 base damage).
The table provided is only to be used in the case of a medium weapon being made large, which is not relevant to the case of an Enlarged small creature wielding an appropriately sized weapon. Since both Small and Medium weapon damage values are provided by default in the Equipment tables, those values are not reproduced in the spell listing.
(Thus, regardless of how well or poorly the spell worked in the past, its function now is both clear and regular.)
|
|
I disagree with this train-of-logic because it relies upon the premise that an Enlarged appropriate weapon of N size is functionally identical to an appropriate weapon of N+1 -- but we know this is a blown premise because the two weapons have different damage characteristics and a thus not functionally identical (and hence the logic-train dependent upon the premise is creaky).
On an "in character" level, let's assume for the moment that a halfling paladin's small lance is slightly shorter than a human cavalier's even though both threaten 10' out. Does it make any sense whatsoever that, after both consume an Enlarge Person potion, that the cavalier now has a weapon which is so long that not only does it reach out 20' but that he can't threaten the closest 10' around him, and meanwhile the paladin's lance isn't one inch longer?
-- That pissed-off halfling will be visiting the potion merchant to demand his money back. Then, after he learns that his stupid lance doesn't work even when he's not Enlarged, he's going to demand his money back from the weapons vender too. And somewhere along the way, he's going to start Smiting.
On an "in character" level, let's assume for the moment that a halfling paladin's small lance is slightly shorter than a human cavalier's even though both threaten 10' out. Does it make any sense whatsoever that, after both consume an Enlarge Person potion, that the cavalier now has a weapon which is so long that not only does it reach out 20' but that he can't threaten the closest 10' around him, and meanwhile the paladin's lance isn't one inch longer?
No, it doesn't make sense if you think about it. But reach is entirely determined by a creatures size category. A small creature and a medium creature have the exact same reach, so increasing a halfing to medium size (say by Enlarge Person) will not change his reach, as medium creatures and small creatures have the same reach.
A spear that is just barely long enough for a human to strike 10 feet away with, getting shrunk down is size so its now proportional to a small size wielder, is still capable to strike 10 feet away makes sense, despite being much shorter? That is the real thing that doesn't make sense is - that a small creature and a medium creature has the same reach to begin with. WotC did it to make things easier, but it doesn't make sense is you try to apply any realism to it.
I disagree with this train-of-logic because it relies upon the premise that an Enlarged appropriate weapon of N size is functionally identical to an appropriate weapon of N+1 -- but we know this is a blown premise because the two weapons have different damage characteristics and a thus not functionally identical (and hence the logic-train dependent upon the premise is creaky).
No, a small weapon enlarged to medium has the same damage as a medium version of that weapon. The table on page 145 is only used to determine the damage of Tiny and Large versions of a weapon - small weapons are never mentioned on that table at all. A small-sized glaive does 1d8 damage. Enlarge it to medium, it does the same damage as a medium sized glaive (1d10), as it is now a medium sized glaive.
The fact that the weapon's damage is different (e.g., a small d8 glaive becoming a 2d6 weapon when Enlarged, as opposed to a normal medium-sized d10 glaive, is prima facie evidence that the situation is not identical to a medium w/medium reach-weapon.
Read Table 6-5 on page 145 again. It lists the damage a medium weapon enlarged to Large size will do (or reduced to Tiny size, but that has nothing to do with this). A Small weapon that is enlarged becomes a Medium weapon, not a Large weapon.
So that small 1d8 glaive enlarged to medium is in all ways a medium glaive, and does 1d10 damage. A small glaive will only do 2d6 damage if it gets enlarged twice - once to Medium, then again to Large.
Actually, I don't think it will ever do 2d6
Small(1d8)->Medium(1d10)
Medium(1d10)->Large(2d8)
*checks book*
You would be correct on that. I just assumed that the poster who I quoted was correct. But seeing how he was wrong in the rest of his post, that obviously wasn't a good idea.
|
Actually, a small creature under the effects of an Enlarge Person spell is increased to the next size category, so medium. According to the spell, "All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell." Thus, a Small creature wielding an appropriately sized Glaive (a small glaive dealing 1d8 base damage) will perform as a medium creature wielding a medium glaive (for 1d10 base damage).
+1
This came up back in 3.5 as well. In that FAQ it was ruled that undersized reach weapons don't give reach. Oversized weapons only give reach as normal.
So...
...a Small longspear in the hands of a human doesn't give reach, but a Small longspear in the hands of a halfling gives reach...and a really Large longspear wouldn't give the human any more reach than his regular old Medium longspear...
*head explodes*
This is why I tossed out weapon sizes in 3.5, and kept them out when I switched to Pathfinder. Silly.
This came up back in 3.5 as well. In that FAQ it was ruled that undersized reach weapons don't give reach. Oversized weapons only give reach as normal.So...
...a Small longspear in the hands of a human doesn't give reach, but a Small longspear in the hands of a halfling gives reach...and a really Large longspear wouldn't give the human any more reach than his regular old Medium longspear...
*head explodes*
Human isn't used to the small longspear's short length and can't effectively use it to reach 10 ft.
The little halfling is used to it, and knows how to lunge forward to thrusts that far.The human using the giant's spear he found has trouble already holding it steady and can't really manouver it so it threatens beyond 10 ft.
I know, it's silly. But as Jeraa said the problem is that small and medium creatures have the same reach to start with, which makes no sense. So everything that is derived from this automatically fails to make sense either.
This is why I tossed out weapon sizes in 3.5, and kept them out when I switched to Pathfinder. Silly.Unfortunately it's still just as mind-boggingly stupid. In fact, it's getting more stupid.
A friend of mine, in another context, calls it "the galloping dumbs".
I know, it's silly. But as Jeraa said the problem is that small and medium creatures have the same reach to start with, which makes no sense. So everything that is derived from this automatically fails to make sense either.
It may not make anything remotely resembling sense if one assumes that the **magic** that changes size behaves in a uniform fashion across the continuum of creature sizes. If, however, one is willing to accept a certain degree of abstraction in the mechanics for the sake of ease-of-play (and thereby ignore the conceptual problems involving the similar treatment accorded by the rules to Small and Medium creatures), and at the same time recognize that the spell produces the effects that the description describes regardless of how nonsensical they might be, then one will find the game much easier to play.
For example, if the spell description for Enlarge Person instead read as follows (bolded text my hypothetical additions):
"This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, except for elves, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8. This increase changes the creature's size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a -2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a -1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size.
A humanoid creature whose size increases to Large has a space of 10 feet and a natural reach of 10 feet. This spell does not change the target's speed.
If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, the creature attains the maximum possible size and may make a Strength check (using its increased Strength) to burst any enclosures in the process. If it fails, it is constrained without harm by the materials enclosing it--the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by increasing its size.
All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell. Melee weapons affected by this spell deal more damage (see Table: Medium/Large Weapon Damage). Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage. Magical properties of enlarged items are not increased by this spell.
Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.
Enlarge person counters and dispels reduce person.
Enlarge person can be made permanent with a permanency spell.
If an elf is targeted by this spell, his ears turn purple and grow warts for the listed duration."
The spell would me utterly nonsensical from any practical standpoint but, if cast, would produce the described effects.
Obviously, no such spell actually does exist in the rules, but the point is that the spells do what they say that they do...