|
well leaving the 'why would you even want to' aspect of this aside...
You'd suffer the penalty to hit for the inappropriately sized weapon.
You'd suffer the worse damage die for size.
If you wielded it two handed, I see no reason why you couldn't use the 1.5 str bonus.
If it were my PFS table, I'd still say you lose the reach of the glaive, however. A small reach weapon would be about the same size as a medium non-reach weapon. That's one of those cases where Rule 0 still applies in PFS.
what happens if a human, with a small glaive, wields it with 2 hands? Do I retain the -2 to-hit but get back the 1.5 str mod to damage?
If you're wielding it two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus.
Even using two hands, a small glaive isn't properly sized for a medium creature, so the -2 penalty applies on attack rolls with it.
The Inappropriately Sized Weapons penalty is separate from how much effort it takes to use a weapon (Number of hands required).
If it were my PFS table, I'd still say you lose the reach of the glaive, however. A small reach weapon would be about the same size as a medium non-reach weapon. That's one of those cases where Rule 0 still applies in PFS.
How does the weapon reach farther when wielded by a smaller creature? Small and Medium reach weapons both reach to 10'.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If it were my PFS table, I'd still say you lose the reach of the glaive, however. A small reach weapon would be about the same size as a medium non-reach weapon. That's one of those cases where Rule 0 still applies in PFS.
Incorrect. Small reach weapons still have reach. (And I really hope you're not suggesting that the length of the item depends on whether a small or medium creature is wielding it.)
Devsvult you don't get to rules 0 at PFS, not unless it is a corner case anyway.
If the weapon is too short to use as a reach weapon for a medium sized creature then how is an even smaller creature with even short arms, who would most likely need a longer weapon to make up for the shorter arms, going to use it. If someone the size of a 6 yr old can hit you from 10 feet away then someone with even longer arms can definitely also you from 10 feet away.
Your ruling is not PFS legal, not does it help verisimilitude.
|
|
Well I think we all agree on answers to the OP question, so let's delve into the tangent.
I was saying I'd deny a medium sized character reach while using a small sized reach weapon isn't based on the belief that the small glaive is suddenly longer or shorter based on who wields it.
I was saying that in my view, small sized isn't JUST being narrower of diameter on the grip, it's also physically shorter than a medium sized glaive. For better balance and leverage and whatever other realistic or pseudorealistic aspects one might cite. The important thing is that they're also SHORTER by some non-negligible margin. Says who? Says me. Not saying the book says it, just that that's my (imo) reasonable interpretation and Rule 0 says the GM can do that.
Its not the same thing as overruling something the book says. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but near as I can tell the rules never say the reach quality is retained (or gained) when moving sizes. Would you allow a tiny sized glaive to add to a giant's reach? Sure, you might. At your table it's your table. I'm just saying I wouldn't. I'd call loss of reach an impact of the size difference, following as naturally as the penalty to hit for the awkwardly sized grips and balance, etc.
Edit:
An attempt to sum it up with some rhetorical questions.
How long is a medium sized greatsword?
How long is a small sized glaive?
Let's assume the small sized glaive is at most, no longer than the medium sized greatsword. (in my view, it's probably even shorter)
So, why should the small glaive keep reach while the equally 'reachy' greatsword doesn't get it?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Not saying the book says it, just that that's my (imo) reasonable interpretation and Rule 0 says the GM can do that.
Not in PFS you can't. I know you don't always see eye-to-eye with PFS policies/rules, but that doesn't mean you can abandon them whenever they're not to your liking. In PFS, you go by the book.
Its not the same thing as overruling something the book says. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but near as I can tell the rules never say the reach quality is retained (or gained) when moving sizes.
The book defines the reach quality as letting you attack 10ft away but not 5ft away. The book also lists certain weapons as having that defined quality in both medium and small sizes. If you look up the entry for a small-sized glaive, you'll find that it's listed as having reach.
To say otherwise is, in fact, "overruling something that the book says".
At your table it's your table.
In PFS, my table is really Mike Brock's table, and I have no right to disregard the rules set forth in writing by the actual GM (Mike). To do so is to cheat.
The general rule is that the weapon is a reach weapon. In order for reach to be lost there would need to be a specific rule to counter it.
General rules take place until they are trumped. My point is simply that since a player is expected to get the same benefits no matter who his PFS GM is that GM's have less power to say no.
In PFS players don't get to play giants who get access to tiny weapons so it is a non-issue. In my home game players don't get to be giants either, but if they did I would not allow it, but I also would not treat a sanctioned event like a home game.
edit:changed "even" to "event"
Would you allow a tiny sized glaive to add to a giant's reach?
No, since a tiny glaive doesn't have 10' reach.
A small glaive does.
Reach: "a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away"
|
|
Well we obviously have a different interpretation of Rule 0.
I've been saying it as shorthand for 'the GM gets to say how things go when the rules are not explicit.'
I in no way meant to infer that the GM gets to ignore what rules he likes.
Jiggy we don't see eye to eye on this. Furthermore I am insulted that you allege that I just do what I want and ignore rules I don't like.
Lets just agree to disagree. Got something more to say? Take it to IM.
Edit: Removed name-calling.
Based on this topic...
Can i make a Human Barbarian LVL10 with 2xSmall Lances, TWF, charging mounted with pounce? o.O
Would you allow a tiny sized glaive to add to a giant's reach?No, since a tiny glaive doesn't have 10' reach.
A small glaive does.
Reach: "a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away"
And a giant could not even use a tiny glaive, at all. So how could it add to his reach?
For a tiny creature it is twohandedFor a small creature it is onehanded
For a medium creature it is light
For anything bigger it is not usable as a weapon.
Based on this topic...
Can i make a Human Barbarian LVL10 with 2xSmall Lances, TWF, charging mounted with pounce? o.O
If mounted charge and pounce can be used together is a topic better left to its own threads. there are several I think.
As long as you are mounted the lance is a onehanded weapon if I remember right. So you could use medium ones.If you pounce you can do so with two small lances.
|
A cloud giant is Huge size and has a 15 feet reach.
Using an appropriate sized longspear, he has a reach of 30 feet. He can use a Medium sized longspear as a light weapon. In the hands of the Medium sized creature for which it is designed, this Medium longspear extends reach from 5 to 10 feet. What is the cloud giant's reach with the Medium sized longspear?
Note: I've used this example to get to a size that doesn't bridge the S-M reach issue, which is a concession to PC sizes.
From the reach weapons description in the equipment section: "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."
It is not unreasonable to limit the application of reach when a reach weapon is of an inappropriate size. This issue isn't as clear as some have made it out to be in this thread, due to the bolded section above.
Citing the typical disclaimers (particularly because this thread has a heavy PFS component and I know how Jiggy feels about the 3.5 FAQ), the 3.5 FAQ addresses this issue. It recognizes that the text isn't as clear as it should be, but says the reach weapon must be of at least the appropriate size (can be larger) for the user in order to gain the reach; the reach that is gained is based on the natural reach of the user. There is a link to the 3.5 FAQ in my profile. The question and reply is on pages 55-6.
If you are discounting the 3.5 FAQ, you still need to reconcile the bolded section of the cited PF rule above.