Greatsword, Great Reach

[Byrdology]

I have toyed around with the lunge feat a bit, and I am not entirely sure that I like it... As it is that is... I have a problem with a character who occupies a 5 ft space, but by no means fills up that space, lunging with a dagger or any other 1- 4 foot weapon to reach an enemy who is ten feet away. While the mechanics of lunging incurring a -2 to AC makes a ton of sense if not a little lenient. Here is my proposed fix.

The "Lunge" weapon property: any weapon that is 5ft in length that does not have the reach property can increase its normal melee reach by 5ft until the end of your turn by taking a -2 penalty to AC until your next turn.

What this means is that a greatsword weilders can "lunge" from lvl 1, a dagger weilders can never lunge, and weapons with the reach property will just have to enjoy the reach property by its self without the benefit of lunging out to 15 ft.

What other weapons are at least 5ft long? Spear, quarter staff, great axe (?), great club (?), halberd, anything else?

[Weables]

I think that this is a serious boost to 2 handed weapons, a class of weapon that is already entirely superior in PFS. I think while its a change that will increase realism, its entirely unbalancing.

[Byrdology]

I can see your point, but would like to comment that a 2hw wielded is already not able to use a shield and the -2 AC capatilizes on that weakness. I must also note, that the lunge property does not threaten like a reach weapon.

[kyrt-ryder]

Byrdology wrote:

I must also note, that the lunge property does not threaten like a reach weapon.

Which is why you'll never see me waste a feat on it.

[Byrdology]

So is it a balance or a bust?

[Byrdology]

?

[kyrt-ryder]

Mmm, well I'd actually use the lunge option if it were integrated into such weapons, but it is questionable in regards to screwing smaller, typically less-favored weapons out of it.

On a very small balance scale though, this would certainly help bridge the gap between Greatswords and Falchion at higher levels.

[Slacker2010]

Byrdology wrote:

I have a problem with a character who occupies a 5 ft space, but by no means fills up that space, lunging with a dagger or any other 1- 4 foot weapon to reach an enemy who is ten feet away.

But a character slinging fireballs is ok? Its a balance issue, things arnt always going to make sense by physics. Dragons (Fantasy dragons, not talking about komoto dragons) dont really exist.

I like the lunge feat and the concept. While its kind of crazy that it works with a dagger, look at the perception rules break down too. I believe someone posted how you cant see pass 670 ft in the current system. Too bad of the Tarrisque is only 700 feet away.

its a game, it has to have some balance.

[Byrdology]

I can accept in a world where magic exists that fireballs work as written. I cannot accept that a medium or small sized character has 10 ft reach with a dagger. I also can't believe that spears and nodachis don't have a reach mechanic built in... But I can see putting the lunge property on weapons that are just shy of being reach weapons. And while I do think that it helps bridge the gap between some other weapons, I hope it's not too much.

[Weables]

The problem is not that you're bridging a gap, the problem is you're widening another one.

two handed weapons are already the most widely used weapons in the game. daggers are used by almost nobody. Buffing the 2 handed weapons makes the dagger even weaker by comparison, and creates even less incentive to use it.

That's where the imbalance is.

[Mudfoot]

Just ban the Lunge feat from light weapons. Problem solved.

To be honest, it's a lot easier to lunge with a longsword than with a greatclub or greataxe. So 2H isn't really relevant. You want something piercing.

@Weables: Rogues with the River Rat trait like daggers just fine. Better than shortswords, especially if you're small (cheaper, lighter, throwable, more damage). Knife Masters love them even more.

[kyrt-ryder]

This depends entirely on how you're defining a lunge Mudfoot. Yes a piercing weapon is the defining tool for a 'fencing lunge' but Lunge as described in Pathfinder is nothing more than hopping into and out of the next square as part of one's attack routine, and leaving yourself a little more vulnerable in the process aka -2 AC. (Keep in mind you can Lunge for a full attack action, but after the first strike a fencer's lunge has lost its momentum.)

Hey Byrd, if you want a slight tweak to Lunge, how's this. (Yes it steps on Step-up's toes a little, but I'm not a huge fan of Step-up anyway.)

Lunge:
Benefit: By taking a -2 Penalty to AC, you expand your presence of mind on the battlefield. Until the start of your next round, enemies provoke attacks of opportunity as if your reach were 5 feet farther than it actually is. When such an AoO is provoked, you have the option to 5' step towards that opponent as part of making your Attack of Opportunity.

Note: A character with Combat Reflexes can Lunge this as many times per round as his Dexterity Modifier allows.

Making a Lunge has no affect on movement in the following round.

[Cranefist]

In my games, I have a number of homebrew weapons that bridge the gap, or are actually the same weapons used differently.

For example, the "Martial Short Spear" is a 1d6 Damage, Crit x3 (20) Reach Weapon you can use 1 handed if you have martial weapon proficiency.

When you use a weapon close to your body, even a long one, you can grip it with two hands or keep your elbows bent. You can twist into the motion creating a strong power arc. You are not hitting as far away as you can, but you hit harder.

By the same extension, reaching far from your body is never carries as much force as holding something close. If you reach with a spear, your hands slide together near the base, or you release with one hand. If you jab with a spear, your hands stay fixed in strong positions. If you swing a two handed sword, your arms stay bent and you create a wide arc. If you reach with a two handed sword you either stab with it or extend your arms and lose the weight of your body in the strike.

So it isn't just AC you should be giving up, but damage.

So a two handed sword should either do 2d6, or do 1d10 and have reach, applying a -2 AC penalty. Weapons that normally have reach don't suffer the -2 AC, but can't be used normally inside their reach.

To make a long story short - if you extend the reach of a close weapon you should drop its damage.

[Byrdology]

That I like.

[The Golux]

I can see why the rules don't include that (It's kind of complicated and includes more than would be easy to put in the weapon stat chart) but it seems pretty well reasoned out.