Large Weapons and Reach


Rules Questions


Do large weapons used by a medium creature (PC) ever get reach if they weren't a reach weapon already in the description of said weapon? I'm going to assume not because the iconic barbarian that wields a large bastard sword doesn't have reach but it would seem to me that at some point the item itself has to get reach maybe at huge?
Second part of this if the item had reach already and was moved to large does it gain 5' more of reach? If yes then what's the reasoning there that wouldn't be for a non reach weapon? I'm assume if its no it's because of the same reasons a non reach weapons don't have reach.

Liberty's Edge

Reach is determined by the user, not the weapon.


Yes I'm understanding that. The question is at some point doesn't a weapon have to have reach? It's not like a huge greatsword is the same length as medium one otherwise why couldn't you wield one? You can't just say it gains mass but no length (well I mean you can say that, I can't stop you from doing so.) Is it just because for game mechanics it makes things easier or is there another reason?


By RAW/RAI they don't, and the reason behind that is as far as I know "BECAUSE!"... You are free to houserule differently if you think it doesn't make sense.
I would like to point out that you can at most wield a one-handed large weapon, as a medium creature, in which case it would be two-handed and recieve to hit penalties.


Large weapons do not have any further reach than medium version of the same weapon. So, to answer your question, no. Theoretically, anything large enough to effectively extend into another ring of five foot squares would be unusual by any creature small enough not to already have such natural reach increase.


Well, logically it should if you want a house rule. Just remember all the logical penalties that would go with it. Particularly that they're not designed or balanced for using two handed. So even though you -can- it's probably not a good idea.


MurphysParadox wrote:
Large weapons do not have any further reach than medium version of the same weapon. So, to answer your question, no. Theoretically, anything large enough to effectively extend into another ring of five foot squares would be unusual by any creature small enough not to already have such natural reach increase.

Could a medium wield a large lance in two hands while mounted, as you can can normally wield one in only one hand while mounted? Or how about a large bastard sword if you had the feat?


Melkiador wrote:
Could a medium wield a large lance in two hands while mounted, as you can can normally wield one in only one hand while mounted?

Very poorly; picture it. The horse's (or whatever) head is in the way so you're twisted around and off balance.

Quote:
Or how about a large bastard sword if you had the feat?

Still should be penalized as weapons don't balance the same when you just scale them up unless the wielder is large too.


Melkiador, there is no rule against wielding a weapon two-handed while mounted. You can wield a lance two handed while mounted.


daimaru wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Could a medium wield a large lance in two hands while mounted, as you can can normally wield one in only one hand while mounted?

Very poorly; picture it. The horse's (or whatever) head is in the way so you're twisted around and off balance.

Quote:
Or how about a large bastard sword if you had the feat?
Still should be penalized as weapons don't balance the same when you just scale them up unless the wielder is large too.

Your logic isn't bad, and I might would rule the same in my games, but it'd be a house ruling. By RAW, those things would possibly be legal. Of course by RAW, you still wouldn't get extra reach for going up a size. I was just suggesting edge cases that may actually invoke the original question.


I just thought of a more interesting example. A large whip. Technically, you could wield a large whip in two hands. Logically, the whip would be longer and thus strike further away. Still by RAW, the whip has the same reach.

Sovereign Court

Lost Ohioian wrote:

Do large weapons used by a medium creature (PC) ever get reach if they weren't a reach weapon already in the description of said weapon? I'm going to assume not because the iconic barbarian that wields a large bastard sword doesn't have reach but it would seem to me that at some point the item itself has to get reach maybe at huge?

Second part of this if the item had reach already and was moved to large does it gain 5' more of reach? If yes then what's the reasoning there that wouldn't be for a non reach weapon? I'm assume if its no it's because of the same reasons a non reach weapons don't have reach.

It's a ghost in the system, but the answer is no. Not unless the weapon naturally has a reach that is.

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.

Also keep in mind that thrown weapons and ranged weapons, bombs and spells do NOT flank by default. Only melee weapons usually get a flanking bonus. Some DMs run this incorrectly.

Sovereign Court

Melkiador wrote:
MurphysParadox wrote:
Large weapons do not have any further reach than medium version of the same weapon. So, to answer your question, no. Theoretically, anything large enough to effectively extend into another ring of five foot squares would be unusual by any creature small enough not to already have such natural reach increase.
Could a medium wield a large lance in two hands while mounted, as you can can normally wield one in only one hand while mounted? Or how about a large bastard sword if you had the feat?

Wielding a larger size bastard sword if you have the proficiency with the weapon is not only legal, but the iconic barbarian, Amiri, does exactly this. You take a -2 to hit for each size category that the weapon is larger (or smaller) than your creature size. In addition, the number of hands required to wield the weapon goes "up" a category for each size it's larger than your creature size. So, a one handed weapon like a bastard sword (if you are proficient) made for a creature 1 size larger than you, requires you to wield it with two hands.

This also works with dwarven waraxes. And since all dwarves treat those as martial weapons, it's a semi-common approach to have a dwarven fighter/ranger/barbarian wield an oversized one to deal 2d8 base damage, with a -2 to hit.


Melkiador wrote:
MurphysParadox wrote:
Large weapons do not have any further reach than medium version of the same weapon. So, to answer your question, no. Theoretically, anything large enough to effectively extend into another ring of five foot squares would be unusual by any creature small enough not to already have such natural reach increase.
Could a medium wield a large lance in two hands while mounted, as you can can normally wield one in only one hand while mounted? Or how about a large bastard sword if you had the feat?

It depends. Is the weapon a two-handed weapon with the caveat that sometimes it can used one-handed? Or is it a one-handed weapon that is restricted to two weapons without a certain feat?

I believe the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon that can be held in one hand, which means a large bastard sword cannot be used in one or two hands by a PC. I am pretty sure I've read something on this and recommend further investigation into what the the Devs/FAQ/Mr. T-Rex has said on this topic.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The Bastard Sword.

It comes up every now and again when talking about weapon size and their designation.

It is a One-Handed weapon in the Exotic Weapon category. If one has martial weapon proficentcy, they can use the Exotic Bastard Sword with two hands. (No Pentalty) They can not, however, use it as it was made because the character doesn't have the Exotic feat for it. They can not wield an oversized one for the same reason.

A character with the Exotic Weapon Proficentcy (Bastard Sword) can use the weapon with one hand (as to it's designation) and wield a larger sized one (Medium character wielding a large BS) with two hands and the penalty. This is what Amiri does, and she has a rage power that takes away the penalty.

Just keep in mind, barring rules specific to the weapons themselves, such as the Lance, weapons keep their designation no matter what skill the character has. They never change from Two Handed to One Handed. The Lance has particulars that have to do with charging whilst mounted, I believe, as the other hand is (assumingly) on the riegns.


MurphysParadox wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
MurphysParadox wrote:
Large weapons do not have any further reach than medium version of the same weapon. So, to answer your question, no. Theoretically, anything large enough to effectively extend into another ring of five foot squares would be unusual by any creature small enough not to already have such natural reach increase.
Could a medium wield a large lance in two hands while mounted, as you can can normally wield one in only one hand while mounted? Or how about a large bastard sword if you had the feat?

It depends. Is the weapon a two-handed weapon with the caveat that sometimes it can used one-handed? Or is it a one-handed weapon that is restricted to two weapons without a certain feat?

I believe the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon that can be held in one hand, which means a large bastard sword cannot be used in one or two hands by a PC. I am pretty sure I've read something on this and recommend further investigation into what the the Devs/FAQ/Mr. T-Rex has said on this topic.

The Bastard Sword and its ilk (Dwarven Waraxe, etc.) can all be wielded in one hand with the appropriate feat. Ergo, a large one can be wielded in two hands if the wielder has the appropriate feat.

As noted in the post above you, they still take the -2 to hit for it being an inappropriately sized weapon.

Relevant FAQ.


Ah, good to know. That's for pulling that up, fretgod99. I was pressed for time when writing my post and couldn't do the necessary searches.


Quote:

Exotic Weapons and Hands: If a weapon is wielded two-handed as a martial weapon and one-handed with an exotic weapon proficiency, can I wield it one-handed without the exotic proficiency at a –4 penalty?

No.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)

Edit 7/26/13: Correction of a typo in the second sentence that said "you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands."

FAQ

Except that this FAQ says that even though they're listed as one handed weapons in the tables, they're treated as two handed weapons for that size category of creature.

Sovereign Court

REVISED FAQ on Bastard Swords from October 2013:
A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon (although for some rules it blurs the line between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon).

The physical properties of a bastard sword are that of a one-handed weapon. For example, its hardness, hit points, ability to be crafted out of special materials, category for using the Craft skill, effect of alchemical silver, and so on, are all that of a one-handed weapon.

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.

For example, if you are wielding it one-handed (which normally requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat), it is treated as a one-handed weapon; Power Attack only gets the one-handed bonus, you cannot use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

If you are wielding it with two hands (whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand), it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects.

IMO that's well clear, and from the entire (updated) FAQ as well. If you have exotic weapon proficiency you can infact wield a Large bastard sword in 2 hands as a medium creature. With typical sizing penalty, reduced to 0 by Titan Mauler archetype. This got FAQ'd and then later re-FAQ'd. So did Titan Mauler, incidentally.


link?


If you use a tiny longspear you get reach if you use a huge shortspeare you dont. The tiny longspeare can be used in one hand and the huge shortspeare is a two handed weapon for a medium character. Is it RAW and RAI?


DEXRAY, it is RAW.

Back in 3.5 there was 'equivalent' weapons but that involved GM fiat for those weapons that were not otherwise listed. In that system a Huge Shortspear would probably count as a Medium Longspear.

Pathfinder did away with that for simplicity sake so yes, it is RAI.


Reach isn't just a matter of size, it's also a matter of leverage. A Spear is balanced in such a way that it's easy to attack at reach. A shortspear, however, isn't. Even if you make it 4x larger, that doesn't change the relative balance. Even though it has the length to reach, it is too awkward to handle in such a manner.

Regarding the Lance, unlike other abilities that actually change the designation of a weapon (ie. Titan Mauler, Quarterstaff Master, etc) in regards to effort to wield, the Lance is still considered a 2-h weapon and it only bypasses the need to devote two actual hands to the weapon. This means that a Large Lance is still unwieldable even while mounted. By contrast, a Large Quarterstaff, with the Quarterstaff Master feat, would be counted as a 2-h weapon for a medium creature (along with the oversize penalty).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Large Weapons and Reach All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.