Okay, so I'm considering allowing reach weapons to attack adjacent foes at a penalty to hit/damage, either -2/-2, -4/-2, -2/-4, or -4/-2.
I'm wondering which one of those makes the most sense, is the most fair, and what impact allowing said rules will do.
Seems like you could just take the Lunge feat and reverse it. +6 BAB prerequisite, -2 to attacks.
Actually, it seems the loss of leverage would be a -2 to damage.
The problem with that logic is that -2 to damage is a baby penalty compared to -2 to attacks. Keeping it an attack penatly works better mathematically within the rules system, even if it seems less "realistic" on one level. That said, I really liked your idea of higher penalties mitigated by a feat.
Off-topic: I should probably mention that starting a reply with the word "actually" comes across as being somewhat snarky and know-it-all, although I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent here.
IMO the easiest solution is to allow the pole end to be used as an improvised weapon, dealing 1d6 and with a -4 penalty to attack unless they have the Catch Off-Guard feat.
Alternately, there was a 3.5 feat in PH2 called Short Haft, which allowed you to switch your grip as a swift(?) action.
Sorry if it comes off snarky.
No worries; reading the rest of your post made it pretty clear you weren't being that way at all. The only time it would ever be in question would be in very short posts, that don't allow the reader enough text to get a feel for your tone.
On topic, I am not sure how -2 dmg is less of a penalty than -2 att. And even so, giving up reach for a round to attack an adjacent foe would compensate, no? Just make the feat/action an either/or for the round in question. I think that gaining reach is more powerful than giving it up (due to AoO, allied squares, etc.)
As to the penaly, -2 damage is just -2, and any successful attack does a minimum 1 point. A missed attack means no damage at all -- which is a very stiff penalty.
As to your main point, though, you're absolutely correct, and that's something I was foolishly overlooking in my excitement over neat correlations between feats. Gaining reach IS usually better than losing it. (Although PF has nerfed the extent to which that's true by changing "an opponent within reach" to "an adjacent opponent" in a lot of the feats and other rules.) From that standpoint, then, a lesser penalty would be appropriate for losing reach, vs. gaining it.
IMO the easiest solution is to allow the pole end to be used as an improvised weapon, dealing 1d6 and with a -4 penalty to attack unless they have the Catch Off-Guard feat.
This more or less opens it up so everyone can threatens near and far automatically when they have a reach weapon simply by taking a -4 on near attacks (and lesser damage).
I do think this would be an interesting addition to the caught off guard feat. It is also very much in-flavor of caught of guard.
Just have people take the Short Haft feat from PHB2. Problem solved.