My medium-sized character was using a reach weapon and a large creature was next to him occupying a 10'x10' area. The DM ruled that I didn't threaten the large creature and now I'm not sure if the answer is so obvious. I can see three outcomes that are justified but it would be good to know if there was anything official that could clear things up.

The three rulings I or the DM think are valid:

1) You don't threaten an adjacent large creature with a reach weapon. The weapon doesn't threaten adjacent targets irrespective of their size. It could also be argued you attack the nearest square of a creature.

2) You do threaten an adjacent large creature with a reach weapon. The large creature occupies a square you threaten so that creature is a valid target.

3) You do threaten an adjacent large creature with a reach weapon but it gets cover. The large creature occupies a square you threaten so that creature is a valid target but nearer squares are occupied (with the same creature, but still...), so they obstruct the attack, granting cover to the defender.

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

Having looked for an exception, it would seem that RAW, as long as the large creature is adjacent to you, you may not use a typical reach weapon to strike it.

I'd personally house rule the creature has cover vs the attack, so long as at least one square the creature occupies is in the reach of the weapon. Unfortunately this won't help AoO, as you can't AoO a target with cover.

By RAW, you threaten squares, not creatures. With a reach weapon, you threaten squares 10' away, but not adjacent squares. So, if you were adjacent to a large creature, you most certainly could attack that creature; simply 5' step so that you are corner-to-corner with it and attack it in the square 10' away. Nothing in the rules says a creature occupying multiple squares must be attacked in the square closest to the attacker.

#1. The description for Reach weapons states: "you use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe" (CRB, page 145).

It doesn't matter how big the creature is, if its right next to you, you can't hit it.

The large creature is both adjacent to you AND 10' away...

I could see disallowing you to attack through it. However if you could attack one of its squares without having to go through an adjacect square to do so sure. This would only be a house rule not sure on actual intent.

This came up in my last game actually.

1) Can you attack the opposite side of a large creature when using a reach weapon?
Answer 1: No, nothing in the rules provide for this.
Answer 2: Yes, but you should apply the soft cover bonus.

I ruled answer 1 but could see it being answer 2.

Note: there is really no question on huge and greater creatures when you have a reach weapon. The side facing you should have a square 2 squares away to target.

Example: (H = huge creature, X = nothing, Y = you)
HHHX
HHHX
HHHY

Using this diagram if you have a 10' reach weapon you should be able to target the creature at its top right corner. It is 10feet away. If you are in the middle (see below) you can turn this to be upright (vertical) and it would look like the diagram above. This allows you to attack a high point on the same creature.

HHHX
HHHY
HHHX

- Gauss

DG, the reach weapon description specifically states "opponent" and whether or not the opponent is adjacent.

I see what your saying with regards to being on the corner, but I'm hesitant on accepting that interpretation. Even though part of the creature is 10 ft. away, it is still adjacent to you—which the reach weapon says you cannot hit.

DG, the reach weapon description specifically states "opponent" and whether or not the opponent is adjacent.

Yes, i agree. You cannot attack an adjacent opponent regardless its size with a reach weapon. The rules are very clear.

HangarFlying:

The reach rules reference adjacent squares.

Most reach weapons 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.

Thus, you can target a huge creature you are standing next to by attacking a non-adjacent square. Unfortunately, this creates an absurd situation where you are attacking the opposite side of a creature. That is what I disallow in my games. What should not be in question is that people can target the same side when it is not adjacent squares (see diagram above).

- Gauss

#1. The description for Reach weapons states: "you use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe" (CRB, page 145).

It doesn't matter how big the creature is, if its right next to you, you can't hit it.

This seems to be an absolute by RAW and cannot be denied, but RAI may be that it is a simplistic explanation of how reach works assuming only creatures that take up a single square are involved. I think I'm reaching (ha!) here, but I just want to ensure rules are solid.

RAW is always the answer when the answer is fuzzy, so I will certainly be referencing this.

Horselord, HangarFlying's statement is not the whole story. CRB p141 uses squares as well.

- Gauss

ok the error here was the attack of oppertunity missed when whom ever moved into the threatened square of the other. they both threatened10 feet around them. its the point of having a spear.
-----
xx-y-
xx---
-----A

there should been a space between the too. both threaten 10 feet.

-----
-xxy-
-xx--
-----B

someone missed an AoO in diagram B.

Horselord, HangarFlying's statement is not the whole story. CRB p141 uses squares as well.

- Gauss

It seems to be, even though it doesn't say it directly, that when you target a creature you target the closest square it occupies. The fact the CRB refers to creatures and distance rather than squares a creature occupies and distance validates this. If I am reading this correctly, it negates any argument about tactically selecting a square to target that the creature occupies.

Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him. Most reach weapons 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. 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.

Horselord:

Reach weapons partially use the ranged combat rules for what you can and cannot target (Cover and concealment etc.). The ranged rules show you can target a creature's specific square.

So it doesn't say it directly, but you can choose what square is the target.

Since it neither says you must target it's closest square nor that you can target any other square it occupies I will continue to use the ranged targeting rules for this. It really isnt unreasonable since a creature that is both adjacent to you AND 10feet away (see my earlier diagrams) from you qualifies as both.

Perhaps we should ask JJ's opinion, but I wont tonight. I have to get some sleep so I can GM tommorow.

- Gauss

Horselord:

Reach weapons partially use the ranged combat rules for what you can and cannot target (Cover and concealment etc.). The ranged rules show you can target a creature's specific square.

So it doesn't say it directly, but you can choose what square is the target.

Since it neither says you must target it's closest square nor that you can target any other square it occupies I will continue to use the ranged targeting rules for this. It really isnt unreasonable since a creature that is both adjacent to you AND 10feet away (see my earlier diagrams) from you qualifies as both.

Perhaps we should ask JJ's opinion, but I wont tonight. I have to get some sleep so I can GM tommorow.

- Gauss

I think you search to turn round the rules where it doesn't need.

And it's a nonsense that says a creature is at once adjacent and not adjacent.

I think you search to turn round the rules where it doesn't need.

The rules are very clear, as they speak of target/opponent/creature which must not be adjacent.
If one of the square of a creature is adjacent to you, the creature is adjacent to you.
It doesn't matter which square you can or not hit.

And it's a nonsense that says a creature is at once adjacent and not adjacent.

Hard to argue with that. A creature is either adjacent or it is not.

Except for cover, reach weapons (even the whip, though with specific rules) are only treated as melee weapons.

Below is every reference to reach weapons from the latest errataed version of the CRB. I find it curious that the wording refers to threatening squares or creatures, not squares occupied by creatures or the part of a creature occupying a square. It's a bit like on a standard attack roll you can't designate hit locations - I wonder if there is a connection...

Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him. Most reach weapons 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. 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.

Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t use it against an adjacent foe.

Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

Large, Huge, Gargantuan, and Colossal Creatures: Very large creatures take up more than 1 square.

Creatures that take up more than 1 square typically have a natural reach of 10 feet or more, meaning that they can reach targets even if they aren’t in adjacent squares.

Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature with greater than normal natural reach (more than 5 feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it. A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it. This attack of opportunity is not provoked if you take a 5-foot step.

Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can’t strike at their natural reach or less.

Cover: To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

I think you just need a little wiggle room to maneuver in with that reach weapon.

DG, the reach weapon description specifically states "opponent" and whether or not the opponent is adjacent.

I see what your saying with regards to being on the corner, but I'm hesitant on accepting that interpretation. Even though part of the creature is 10 ft. away, it is still adjacent to you—which the reach weapon says you cannot hit.

Some common sense needs to be interjected into this adjudication.

Would you want your game modeling combat to include the following:

PC: Yells :"Put a wall of stone between me and the bad guy SO I CAN HIT HIM."

Situation:
PC is adjacent to a huge creature. PC is wielding a reach weapon and can hit a tiny creature that is in one of the huge creature's squares.

If there were a wall of stone between the PC and the huge creature that caused them to no longer be adjacent then the PC would still be able to attack a square in which the huge creature resides.

DM Call: you may make the attack AS IF there were a wall separating you from the creature to which you are adjacent...

This avoids the polearm striking PAST the adjacent creature to hit a far square, but allows the situation I describe to not violate verisimilitude.

-James

Step 1: 5-foot step back
Step 2: Full-attack with reach weapon
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit

From a RAW interpretation, I would have to agree that you cannot attack a creature adjacent to you - no matter it's size and the other squares it occupies.

That said, this shouldn't normally be a problem. Even against a large or larger opponent, you can simply 5 foot step back and make your full attack. The situations in which you can't do this are somewhat rare - pinned against a wall, edge of a cliff, difficult terrain, etc. and I believe this is 100% intended to be the drawback of using a reach weapon. Also, shouldn't every character with a reach weapon also be carrying a non-reach weapon?

In addition, I agree with what Grimmy said - you need some room to maneuver a spear so that you can hit someone with the tip of it, instead of just trying to whack them with the side of it. Speaking of whacking them with the side of the spear, there's a fighter archetype that basically allows this exact thing (I think you actually use the other end of the reach weapon as a club), so allowing this to happen (even at the soft cover penalty) would essentially be taking away from this archetype.

Just my $0.02

My character uses a reach weapon, an is often enlarged, so ve had to look this up. The way I've been playing if a creature is adjacent. Is cannot be targeted with a reach weapon.. But if reach is increased past 10 feet (enlarged) you can potentually attack non-adjacent creature if you threaten any of its squares taking soft cover penalties if nessesary.

Mind you my table houseruled away soft cover (high powered game) so go reach weapons!

In any case you should have a light back-up weapon of some sort, a throwing weapon is great with quick draw.

Hmm after re-reading this thread, i`m thinking that when enlarged can't attack a creature 5 feet away at all with my bardiche, even if threaten some squares of a large or larger creature... Makes reach weapons less then optimal with large creatures because 5ft step then attack suddenly doesn't work well. Which is fair I guess but will change my strategies a touch!

I would definitely let you attack the big creature even though he's adjacent. RAW appears to not allow for it, though.

Which is really odd, given the rules for shooting into melee against a very large creature, you'd think you could target a far-off space the creature occupies to attack with a reach weapon, as you can with a ranged weapon (to avoid the melee penalty).