Try this thread.
So no, you can't.
Adjacent creatures can't be attacked with reach weapons, how big they are/which squares they occupy is irrelevant.
The consensus is that you cannot.
The relevant rules are: "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)."
The foe (specifically, the bear) is adjacent to you, even if it occupies multiple squares, and hence can't be attacked.
From a realism point of view, I agree with this ruling. The back half of the bear more or less has total cover provided to it from the front half of the bear.
preventing you from bringing the damaging portion of the weapon to bear in an effective manner.
Or to griffon. Or to T-Rex. Or to dragon. Or to lots of things...
I think the cover rules imply that you can choose a square to attack:
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.
...
Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.
If you can't actually choose which square to attack, why would you be able to choose a square to determine cover?
If you can't actually choose which square to attack, why would you be able to choose a square to determine cover?
Because:
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.
So the simple question is, 'Is the OP's bear adjacent to the guy with the reach weapon?"
If Yes, then it cannot be attacked.
The rule says nothing about "A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him AND to strike at the back end of adjacent large creatures."
While it makes sense that it can (heck, it makes sense that you can use real life reach weapons to hit someone 5' away without improvising or making weakened attacks), the RAW simply doesn't allow for using reach weapons against any part of an adjacent foe. Quite the opposite, actually.
I think the cover rules imply that you can choose a square to attack:
If you can't actually choose which square to attack, why would you be able to choose a square to determine cover?
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.
...
Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.
For when it's half behind a wall.
I think the cover rules imply that you can choose a square to attack:
If you can't actually choose which square to attack, why would you be able to choose a square to determine cover?
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.
...
Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.
You ABSOLUTELY can choose which square to attack.
Reach weapons, however, have specific wording preventing you from attacking adjacent creatures. So you can attack the SQUARE no problem (hit the ground) but not the creature.
Because the rules say so.
As someone who has actually trained with reach weapons, I can unequivocally state that they are (usually) fully effective against nearby opponents, even those much closer than 5'. My two reach weapons of choice were the kusari-gama (I won't count that one; as a flexible weapon it was always exactly the length I needed it to be), a yari, and a naginata.
Now, the yari (spear) was really only fully effective as a thrusting weapon. Even though the head is sharpened like a blade and the wielder can slash with it, that's a less effective attack (easier to block and less likely to penetrate any armor). Admittedly, when someone is only 2 or 3 feet away (comfortable punching distance), the length of the yari requires the user to step back (5'Step, but not really the full five feet) to use it effectively. I suspect this is the basis for saying reach weapons cannot be used against adjacent foes.
But it's flawed reasoning. With a yari, I could not strike a foe 10' away. Even though it's a polearm, it's not that long (same length as a typical European spear, give or take a bit). 10' is just too far for even a normal spear (though lances and pikes can do it). And with a yari I could easily use it at full power at 5'.
With the naginata (glaive) I could fully hit someone 2 feet away with full power and force. Period. That's much closer than the Pathfinder "adjacent" rule (5').
Why?
Because people using polearms of any kind are not holding the very far end of the shaft.
My best text diagram:
sssssssssssXsssssssssssssssssssssssssssXsssssssssssssssssssssssBBBBBBBBBBBB
In the diagram, s represent the shaft (haft) of the naginata while the B represents the blade. To attack any enemy at any range, I would hold my hands at the locations I've marked with an X. This gives me maximum power with the weapon.
As you can see, that doesn't leave 5' of shaft between my forward hand and the blade. More like 2 feet or so. Furthermore, holding it correctly I could never hit someone 10' away. Not even close. I doubt I could hit someone 5' away without changing my grip or taking a step (or two) toward them to close that gap.
I think Paizo (and predecessors) assumed people held held it more like this:
sXsXsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssBBBBBBBBBBBB
Which is utterly ridiculous. I can guarantee that swinging it like that LOSES power. Nobody does it. Nobody.
TL;dr: used correctly, any slashing polearm should be treated as a non-reach weapon. Thrusting polearms are debatable - the longest (lance, pike) should have reach. The rest probably should not.
That said, Pathfinder often doesn't aim for realism, such as this case, so the game mechanic is what it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who has actually trained with magic such as fireball, I can unequivocally state that the way it works in real life is very different from the way it works in the game.
For balance purposes, rules were written regarding range, damage and such.
Do not try to apply real world logic to a game that has dragons and magic.
Do not try to apply real world logic to a game that has dragons and magic.
Ahhh, yes, the old "dragons and magic" fallacy. Well done.
That statement is entirely irrelevant to what can be done by a human with a tool that actually exists on earth.
What a dragon can do with a reach weapon is irrelevant to what a human can do with it, and my whole discussion was, obviously, not talking about real-world magical weapons so comparing them to in-game magical weapons is embarrassingly flawed logic.
What a man on earth can do with a Naginata COULD BE exactly what a human in Pathfinder can do with a Naginata.
My point was that it isn't, and I even emphasized that point with the last line of my previous post. It apparently is your point too. So we agree on my point, even though we don't agree at all on what it has to do with dragons or magic.
|
I think the cover rules imply that you can choose a square to attack:
If you can't actually choose which square to attack, why would you be able to choose a square to determine cover?
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.
...
Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.
Good point, real Schrodinger's bear this is turning into. I'm thinking you could but they would get cover since your target is obstructed by the other parts you are trying to avoid. This would basically function like using a reach weapon to hit a target behind someone.
Isn't every general combat rule written with the assumption that two medium size creatures fighting one another? Applying the rules that were written fro medium sized creatures to all other creatures seems to be what causes at least half of the rules confusion on the boards...
this is not to say the "Reach weapons cannot be used on large adjacent creatures" positions is not a true reading of RAW. I agree, that is what the rules leave you with... I just think this is a rule that is incomplete, and falls into one of those "corner cases" that Paizo encourages GM's to rule on. So if a guy is swinging a Luceren Hammer, it would make sense to be able to hit the back of the creature, but if you are using a thrusting weapon, you would have to improvise and take a -4 to your attack.
|
|
Isn't every general combat rule written with the assumption that two medium size creatures fighting one another? Applying the rules that were written fro medium sized creatures to all other creatures seems to be what causes at least half of the rules confusion on the boards...
this is not to say the "Reach weapons cannot be used on large adjacent creatures" positions is not a true reading of RAW. I agree, that is what the rules leave you with... I just think this is a rule that is incomplete, and falls into one of those "corner cases" that Paizo encourages GM's to rule on. So if a guy is swinging a Luceren Hammer, it would make sense to be able to hit the back of the creature, but if you are using a thrusting weapon, you would have to improvise and take a -4 to your attack.
My thoughts exactly. Otherwise it opens up other weird setups like being unable to attack a kaiju when you are passing beneath its feet because it's technically adjacent.
Just take a -4 whap it in the bum, put it in core somewhere and knock 1 more thing off the ambiguous reach weapon rules list.
As you noted, the weapons you've trained with couldn't hit someone ten feet away, so they aren't as long as reach weapons. Imagine increasing the haft of your weapon by another 3-5 feet. It would be much more difficult to use at close quarters and even if you gripped up the back would be swinging around and you'd have to be careful not to let it hit the ground anything else severely limiting the ways you can use it. (So I guess you could use it as an improvised normal length weapon but that's a whole other discussion).