What is the effective reach of oversized Reach weapons wielded by smaller creatures.


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I can't seem to find an answer to this on the boards. I can't believe it hasn't come up yet considering the Titan Mauler exists.

If a Medium creature is wielding a longspear for a Large creature, what is the medium creature's effective reach?

Possible Options:

A) Large Longspears are 20' long. The reach of the creature is 20 feet.

B) Large longspears double a large creature's natural reach (10 feet), which means the weapon itself is 10 feet long. Add that to the medium creature's natural reach, and we conclude that the creature's reach is 15 feet.

C) Something else.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Here's a thread on the subject.


That thread posits some interesting ideas (particularly regarding the centaur and hill giant using the same long spear), but it doesn't actually offer any answers.

I'm hoping for some kind of rules citation or errata that would give an official answer. If there isn't one, maybe we can FAQ this.

The discussion in that thread is very relevant though.

Scarab Sages

According to the FAQ for ultimate combat, Titan mauler does not allow. A medium sized creature to wield a large two handed weapon.

I can't copy and paste it, but it's the third question on this page: FAQ

So how are you weilding a large reach weapon as a medium creature?

Scarab Sages

You could wield a large whip (Or a huge scorpion whip, for that matter). You still wouldn't threaten with it without whip mastery, and whip mastery only allows you to threaten your natural reach +5 feet, regardless of the whip itself.


Reach is a property of the weapon. It either has reach or it does not have reach. The size of the weapon does not enter the equation beyond whether or not the creature is able to wield it. A Human could wield a Tiny Longspear as a light weapon and it would still have reach, thus he can attack out to 10' reach per normal rules just the same as if he were wielding a Small or Medium Longspear. A Whip will triple your natural reach regardless of whether it is a Small, Medium, or Large variety. Reach is not a function of the size of the weapon by the standard rules; it's like any other special property. A Sai is a Monk weapon regardless of size and a Tonfa is a Blocking weapon regardless of size and a Temple Sword is a Trip weapon regardless of size. Likewise, a Longspear is a Reach weapon regardless of size and a Large non-Reach weapon is also not a Reach weapon regardless of size. Even if you were to wield a Huge Sunblade (for context, about the size of the wing of a Cessna), it would not have Reach because it's based on a Bastard Sword and a Bastard Sword does not have Reach.


Medium creature with a Large sized Flying Talon. It's a light reach weapon. Sized up it is still usable by a medium creature.

So the question really is, what is the reach of a medium creature wielding a large flying talon, but that was more complicated than I wanted to make it, so I went with the spear as an example.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

reach and threatening cones are based on character size and not weapon I believe.

Grand Lodge

Reach is a weapon on the property that indicates how big that weapon is. A medium glaive reaches an extra 5'. A large glaive reaches an extra 10'. If you as a medium creature could somehow wield a large glaive, your threatened area would go out to 15'. Weapons don't just magically change sizes depending on who is using them.

Until it's officially stated one way or the other, anything else is obviously wrong because weapons don't change sizes on their own. "Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach" is a blanket general statement. You've got to be intelligent and extrapolate what that actually means and if you're trying to say that weapons shrink or grow depending on who is wielding them that can't be right.


claudekennilol wrote:
Until it's officially stated one way or the other, anything else is obviously wrong because weapons don't change sizes on their own. "Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach" is a blanket general statement. You've got to be intelligent and extrapolate what that actually means and if you're trying to say that weapons shrink or grow depending on who is wielding them that can't be right.

Of course not. That would be absurd.

Option A states that a large longspear is 20 feet long. It is 20 feet long no matter who is wielding it.

Option B states that the weapons reach is actually a function of the reach of the creature intended to wield it, and that the weapon's reach is only actually 10 feet. The rest of the reach comes from the creature. So, when a smaller creature wields it, the overall reach is slightly smaller.

Neither case implies that the weapon changes sides.

I want to know if the overall reach is a function of the weapon itself, or a combination of the weapon and the natural reach of the weilder.


claudekennilol wrote:

Reach is a weapon on the property that indicates how big that weapon is. A medium glaive reaches an extra 5'. A large glaive reaches an extra 10'. If you as a medium creature could somehow wield a large glaive, your threatened area would go out to 15'. Weapons don't just magically change sizes depending on who is using them.

Until it's officially stated one way or the other, anything else is obviously wrong because weapons don't change sizes on their own. "Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach" is a blanket general statement. You've got to be intelligent and extrapolate what that actually means and if you're trying to say that weapons shrink or grow depending on who is wielding them that can't be right.

A tiny creature has 0' of natural reach. With a reach weapon such as a longspear, such a creature can attack out to 5' but with any other kind of weapon (say, a Greatsword), they can only attack a creature with whom they share a space. Does that mean that a Medium creature wielding a Tiny Greatsword has 0' reach on their attack? A Glaive is only 7 feet long while a Greatsword is 5 feet long. The Glaive has only 2 feet on the Greatsword but the Glaive gives an additional 5 feet of reach just because of its size? Moreover, a Small Glaive would be 3.5 feet and a Small Greatsword would be 2.5 feet but a Small creature can still attack out to 5' with the Greatsword and out to 10' with the 3.5 foot Glaive. A Tiny Greatsword is 1.25 feet and a Tiny Glaive is 1.75 feet but a Tiny creature with 0' natural reach wielding a 1.75 foot Glaive can attack out to a full 5 feet. Meanwhile, a Medium creature wielding a Large Bastard Sword (8 feet in length) can't attack at reach but a Medium creature wielding a Medium Glaive (7 feet) can. Your argument is invalid.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

If you have lunge and a reach weapon. Your size is medium. What is your reach? 15 or 20 ft.


Rogar Stonebow wrote:
If you have lunge and a reach weapon. Your size is medium. What is your reach? 15 or 20 ft.

Exactly. Is a reach weapon's reach a function of the natural reach of the weilder, or the weapon?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:

Reach is a weapon on the property that indicates how big that weapon is. A medium glaive reaches an extra 5'. A large glaive reaches an extra 10'. If you as a medium creature could somehow wield a large glaive, your threatened area would go out to 15'. Weapons don't just magically change sizes depending on who is using them.

Until it's officially stated one way or the other, anything else is obviously wrong because weapons don't change sizes on their own. "Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach" is a blanket general statement. You've got to be intelligent and extrapolate what that actually means and if you're trying to say that weapons shrink or grow depending on who is wielding them that can't be right.

but I think the rules on reach only ever talk about character's size though. I'm using this.

then reach simply says: "Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe." This is very specific and says nothing to do with you natural reach.

in another area it says: "Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are examples of 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." Which says yes, it does change based on your natural reach.

in either case though, it uses your characters size, not your weapon, weapon size does not change what you can hit.


claudekennilol wrote:
Reach is a weapon on the property that indicates how big that weapon is. A medium glaive reaches an extra 5'. A large glaive reaches an extra 10'. If you as a medium creature could somehow wield a large glaive, your threatened area would go out to 15'. Weapons don't just magically change sizes depending on who is using them.

No. Reach weapons double your reach. It doesn't add a specific amount of reach.

Quote:
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are 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.

If you are a Large creature with the typical 10' reach, that doubles to 30' with a reach weapon. Give that exact same weapon to a Large creature that somehow had a 15' natural reach, that creature now has a 30' reach.

It doesn't make sense, but those are the rules. The amount of reach a weapon gives has absolutely nothing to do with its actual length. It just matters whether the weapon has the Reach property or not.


So lets tangle this up a little more.

What is the effective reach of a Medium sized Alchemist with a medium Longspear drinks a potion of Longarm.

What is that character's effective reach?

What if that Alchemist was wielding a Large sized Flying Talon?


Jeraa wrote:


It doesn't make sense, but those are the rules. The amount of reach a weapon gives has absolutely nothing to do with its actual length. It just matters whether the weapon has the Reach property or not.

It does make some sense, in real world terms. If my character picks up an extra long weapon s/he is going to have to choke up on it in order to use it at all and that extra length is going to mostly get in the way. The reason spears don't just get extra long is that they aren't useful.


daimaru wrote:


It does make some sense, in real world terms. If my character picks up an extra long weapon s/he is going to have to choke up on it in order to use it at all and that extra length is going to mostly get in the way. The reason spears don't just get extra long is that they aren't useful.

Better not tell that to the Swiss. The pikemen they are famous for wielded spears that were 22 feet long. That was their regulation length.

Roman phalanx pikes were 15-20 throughout the empire's history.

In the real world a flying talon can strike accurately at a distance of up to 20 feet (with the same force as a .22 bullet).

The real world is full of examples of weapons pathfinder considers to be "oversized"


Doomed Hero wrote:

So lets tangle this up a little more.

What is the effective reach of a Medium sized Alchemist with a medium Longspear drinks a potion of Longarm.

What is that character's effective reach?

What if that Alchemist was wielding a Large sized Flying Talon?

A medium creature under the effects of a Longarm spell has 10 foot reach. With a longspear (or other reach weapon), that doubles to 20 feet.

Thy flying talon appears in Crown of the Kobold King, which was not written for Pathfinder, but 3.5. Properly converted, it should just be like any other reach weapon. So again, a medium creature under the effects of a Longarm spell has 10' reach, which the flying talon doubles to 20'.

It being large size makes no difference. A reach weapon is a reach weapon. Of course, that is assuming you can even get reach from an inappropriately-sized weapon. The rules imply differently:

Quote:
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are 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.

That can be read as you requires a reach weapon that appropriately sized for you (medium creatures with medium weapons, large creatures with large weapons) to even get reach in the first place.

Grand Lodge

Those are not the rules and you're taking a general rule and bending it to your will for a specific circumstance. A spear doesn't get longer just because you made your arm longer.


Doomed Hero wrote:
daimaru wrote:


It does make some sense, in real world terms. If my character picks up an extra long weapon s/he is going to have to choke up on it in order to use it at all and that extra length is going to mostly get in the way. The reason spears don't just get extra long is that they aren't useful.
Quote:


Better not tell that to the Swiss. The pikemen they are famous for wielded spears that were 22 feet long. That was their regulation length.
But they fought in groups. Individually, those things were awkward.
Quote:


The real world is full of examples of weapons pathfinder considers to be "oversized"

But, in the real world outsized spears were used as part of a highly disciplined and trained group. Individually, they were awkward.


Jeraa wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Reach is a weapon on the property that indicates how big that weapon is. A medium glaive reaches an extra 5'. A large glaive reaches an extra 10'. If you as a medium creature could somehow wield a large glaive, your threatened area would go out to 15'. Weapons don't just magically change sizes depending on who is using them.

No. Reach weapons double your reach. It doesn't add a specific amount of reach.

So a diminutive creature with a Reach weapon would have 0 reach?


claudekennilol wrote:
Those are not the rules and you're taking a general rule and bending it to your will for a specific circumstance. A spear doesn't get longer just because you made your arm longer.

Again, a weapons length has absolutely nothing to do with reach. It is entirely dependant on if the weapon has the Reach property or not.

Should a Fine-sized creature somehow manage to wield a Colossal greatsword, that Fine-sized creature still has a reach of 0 feet. Reach has nothing to do with weapon length. At all.

No it doesn't make sense. But then neither does saying a 2' tall creature (lower end of Small) has the exact same reach (And even takes up the exact same space on the battlefield) as an 8' tall creature (the upper end of Medium.) Nor does it make sense that a Titan can stab someone 30' away with a dagger at no penalty, but throwing it at the exact same creature has a -4 penalty on the roll because of the distance (only 10' range increment). But that is how the rules work. They don't make sense. Never have.

Quote:
So a diminutive creature with a Reach weapon would have 0 reach?

By the rules, yes. Reach weapons double your natural reach. 2 x 0 is still 0. However, by developer ruling, they get 5' reach. But that is his personal opinion. The rules say differently.


So you are saying that the reach of the creature wielding the weapon is the only deciding factor? The length or size of the weapon is irrelevant?

A human stabbing someone with a pixie's long spear would still have a 10' reach?

A hill giant stabbing someone with a human's longspear still has a 20' reach?

That seems odd to me.


Doomed Hero wrote:

So you are saying that the reach of the creature wielding the weapon is the only deciding factor? The length or size of the weapon is irrelevant?

A human stabbing someone with a pixie's long spear would still have a 10' reach?

A hill giant stabbing someone with a human's longspear still has a 20' reach?

That seems odd to me.

If you think that's odd, just wait until you see the dragons and magic lightning bolts the game has.


Apples and Oranges.

Dragons and lightning bolts (mostly) make sense according to their own rules. They have internal consistancy.

This case doesn't seem to have any internal consistancy. In fact, it is a great example of how the reach and size rules don't make a whole lot of sense.


'Reach rules' combined with 'Inappropriately Sized Weapons rules' create a lot of problems/questions that are not answered within RAW.

We need an errata for reach.

Quote:
A reach weapon looses its reach quality if it is used as an inappropriately sized weapon.

No abuse of small reach weapons and not confusion with large reach weapons.

Or better .. delete the 'Inappropriately Sized Weapons' rules. A large longsword is a medium two-handed sword. A small two-handed sword is a medium longsword. If there is no compareable weapon then you cannot use it.


Eridan wrote:

'Reach rules' combined with 'Inappropriately Sized Weapons rules' create a lot of problems/questions that are not answered within RAW.

We need an errata for reach.

Quote:
A reach weapon looses its reach quality if it is used as an inappropriately sized weapon.

Wait…

So you think that a Titan Mauler who gets their hands on a Hill Giant's longspear (normally a 20' reach) would be able to use the weapon with their Massive Weapons ability, but it should lose it's Reach property?

So the 20 foot spear, completely usable by the character in question, should have a reach of 5 feet?

What? Why?


It wouldn't work with a Titan Mauler because they can't wield a Large 2-h weapon. But it would work with either a Redcap (small Fey) wielding a Medium Longspear or a Tiefling with the Large Arms variant wielding a Large Longspear.

Grand Lodge

Jeraa wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Those are not the rules and you're taking a general rule and bending it to your will for a specific circumstance. A spear doesn't get longer just because you made your arm longer.

Again, a weapons length has absolutely nothing to do with reach. It is entirely dependant on if the weapon has the Reach property or not.

Should a Fine-sized creature somehow manage to wield a Colossal greatsword, that Fine-sized creature still has a reach of 0 feet. Reach has nothing to do with weapon length. At all.

No it doesn't make sense. But then neither does saying a 2' tall creature (lower end of Small) has the exact same reach (And even takes up the exact same space on the battlefield) as an 8' tall creature (the upper end of Medium.) Nor does it make sense that a Titan can stab someone 30' away with a dagger at no penalty, but throwing it at the exact same creature has a -4 penalty on the roll because of the distance (only 10' range increment). But that is how the rules work. They don't make sense. Never have.

Quote:
So a diminutive creature with a Reach weapon would have 0 reach?
By the rules, yes. Reach weapons double your natural reach. 2 x 0 is still 0. However, by developer ruling, they get 5' reach. But that is his personal opinion. The rules say differently.

By the rules I'm still saying no. If a human somehow has a 30' arm and you give him a glaive he can't reach out 60'. This is my stance and no amount of text, save for JJ himself coming in and correcting me, will change my mind.


Likewise, if a weapon is 30 feet long, and a medium sized character or monster somehow has the ability to wield it in spite of the size differences, shouldn't the weapon's reach still be 30 feet?

I guess the real question is how much of a weapon's reach is made up of, or dependent on, a creature's natural reach?

The rules say that a reach weapon doubles a creature's natural reach, but when size differences come into play that clearly stops making sense.

Grand Lodge

Doomed Hero wrote:

Likewise, if a weapon is 30 feet long, and a medium sized character or monster somehow has the ability to wield it in spite of the size differences, shouldn't the weapon's reach still be 30 feet?

I guess the real question is how much of a weapon's reach is made up of, or dependent on, a creature's natural reach?

The rules say that a reach weapon doubles a creature's natural reach, but when size differences come into play that clearly stops making sense.

The way I see it is you take an appropriately sized weapon for any given size creature. You look at how much it increases that creatures reach by and that's how much reach it adds to anyone that wields it. Thus a reach weapon for a like-sized creature doubles its reach, and any other size gets modified by however much that weapon would modify that like-sized creature's reach.

reach wrote:
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 says "Most" and then goes to clarify what exactly it means. Obviously it's talking about "x size" creature wielding like-sized weapons because that is the assumption (that creatures wield weapons sized for them). If you somehow have an abnormal reach you are no longer a "typical Medium" creature and thus have to figure out how far you can reach based off the information given--you no longer follow the default "double" because you are no longer typical.


Jeraa wrote:
No. Reach weapons double your reach. It doesn't add a specific amount of reach.

Hum... Don't forget part of the sentence please : 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 for non typical small or medium wielder the rules don't apply, as well as for some reach weapons... No rules, meaning GM fiat...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, since even Titan Maulers can wield oversized weapons (and there a very few ways to wield reach weapons larger than your size category (most reach weapons are two-handed with the whip as one notable exception) the problem isn't so much "what reach should creatures wielding oversized weapon with the reach quality be ?" as much as "what reach should creatures wielding undersized weapons with the reach quality be?"

In my opinion the answer is that your reach is based on your sized and reach and not that of the weapon, for game balance. If you need a reason why your 30ft spear doesn't give you 35 ft reach it's because you can't wield the damn thing properly in the first place and you can only effecitvely use 10ft of it. No trying to cheat around the system.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The effect is that the would-be wielder trips on his face while trying to wield a weapon that simply is too large for him to wield effectively.

Reach weapons are generally two handed weapons.

You can't wield a weapon that would require two or more hands of a creature one or more sizes than yourself.

Liberty's Edge

The rules as written in the CRB are written in the context of creatures using appropriately sized weapons. The rules do grant an allowance that lets a GM make a reasonable interpretation for situations that fall outside of the standard paradigm.

It is certainly reasonable, and within the spirit of the rules, to allow a standard medium PC race wielding a large long spear—assuming they have a legal means to do so—to threaten at the 10 and 15 foot ranges, while not threatening at the 5 foot range.

EDIT: that being said, I'm not aware of a legal way that would let a medium character do this, so in all actuality, this post is merely for academic discussion.


LazarX wrote:

The effect is that the would-be wielder trips on his face while trying to wield a weapon that simply is too large for him to wield effectively.

Reach weapons are generally two handed weapons.

You can't wield a weapon that would require two or more hands of a creature one or more sizes than yourself.

Imagine for a second a 15th level mythic barbarian with a strength of 40. He uses anvils for bicep curls. He can punch through stone walls. He can bull rush dragons.

He's not playing by your ideas of what is or isn't possible. When he picks up a hill giant's glaive he is actually twice as strong as the original wielder in spite of being about 1/4 the mass. That glaive might as well be a light saber for him based on how much effort it really takes him to swing around.

This is a cartoonish level of power. This is the Incredible Hulk with a telephone pole.

Let go of your ideas of realism and focus on the mechanical question.

What is a weapon's effective reach based on?


It's not just the weight; it's the weight, bulk, and balance. Even if you had a 30' weapon, it doesn't mean that you can balance it properly. What if you had a 100' pole? Would it have 100' reach? A 1000' pole? There are not only practical limits but also mechanical issues. Sometimes, those mechanical issues will make certain aspects unrealistic such as attacking with a small or tiny reach weapon. But the lengths are already mis-matched; a 7' Glaive allows a medium creature to attack out to 10'. Furthermore, a person isn't a 5' cube; squares represent tactical areas, not absolute sizes. You maneuver anchored to a 5' square but you're moving in and out of that square when you actually fight. So it's better to just base it on mechanical rules and that means that "reach" is a weapon property like any other; it doesn't care about the size of the weapon any more than Monk, Trip, Defending, etc.


You aren't addressing the actual question. Call it a thought exercise if you want.

Assuming the character in question can wield an oversized reach weapon, what would that character's effective reach be?


Doomed Hero wrote:

You aren't addressing the actual question. Call it a thought exercise if you want.

Assuming the character in question can wield an oversized reach weapon, what would that character's effective reach be?

The same as the reach of a character wielding a normal-sized reach weapon which is also the same as a character wielding an under-sized reach weapon.


Kazaan wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

You aren't addressing the actual question. Call it a thought exercise if you want.

Assuming the character in question can wield an oversized reach weapon, what would that character's effective reach be?

The same as the reach of a character wielding a normal-sized reach weapon which is also the same as a character wielding an under-sized reach weapon.

That doesn't make any sense.

A human wielding a halfling's halberd should not have the same reach as a human wielding an ogre's halberd.

The size and length of the weapon should make a difference to the overall reach.

Grand Lodge

Kazaan wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

You aren't addressing the actual question. Call it a thought exercise if you want.

Assuming the character in question can wield an oversized reach weapon, what would that character's effective reach be?

The same as the reach of a character wielding a normal-sized reach weapon which is also the same as a character wielding an under-sized reach weapon.

And that's not right. If a character can wield a 20' long weapon then his reach is increased by 20'--regardless of the size of the weapon and regardless of the size of the wielder.

Specifically to Doom Hero's question, if you had a way of legally wielding a glaive that big, then your reach would be enhanced by the same distance as that of an appropriately-sized giant wielding it.


claudekennilol wrote:

And that's not right. If a character can wield a 20' long weapon then his reach is increased by 20'--regardless of the size of the weapon and regardless of the size of the wielder.

Specifically to Doom Hero's question, if you had a way of legally wielding a glaive that big, then your reach would be enhanced by the same distance as that of an appropriately-sized giant wielding it.

Your two statements here seem to be at odds with each other.

claudekennilol wrote:
If a character can wield a 20' long weapon then his reach is increased by 20'.

This seems to indicate that reach is dependent on the length of the weapon (option a)

claudekennilol wrote:
if you had a way of legally wielding a glaive that big, then your reach would be enhanced by the same distance as that of an appropriately-sized giant wielding it.

This seems to indicate that overall reach is the creature's natural reach plus the additional reach the weapon normally grants. (option b)

Care to clarify?

Grand Lodge

Doomed Hero wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

And that's not right. If a character can wield a 20' long weapon then his reach is increased by 20'--regardless of the size of the weapon and regardless of the size of the wielder.

Specifically to Doom Hero's question, if you had a way of legally wielding a glaive that big, then your reach would be enhanced by the same distance as that of an appropriately-sized giant wielding it.

Your two statements here seem to be at odds with each other.

claudekennilol wrote:
If a character can wield a 20' long weapon then his reach is increased by 20'.

This seems to indicate that reach is dependent on the length of the weapon (option a)

claudekennilol wrote:
if you had a way of legally wielding a glaive that big, then your reach would be enhanced by the same distance as that of an appropriately-sized giant wielding it.

This seems to indicate that overall reach is the creature's natural reach plus the additional reach the weapon normally grants. (option b)

Care to clarify?

They're same. "his reach plus 20" -- if say a large creature were wielding a 20 foot reach weapon he would then be able to hit at his reach 5-10 plus 20 which is 25-30.


Doomed Hero wrote:

That doesn't make any sense.

A human wielding a halfling's halberd should not have the same reach as a human wielding an ogre's halberd.

The size and length of the weapon should make a difference to the overall reach.

Again, a Halfling wielding a Glaive half the size of a Human's Glaive can attack at exactly, precisely the same reach that the Human wielding a Human Glaive can; despite the Halfling's Glaive being half the size of the Human's Glaive. They both attack out to 10'. And not even the Human's Glaive is 10' long; it's only 7' long. Large creature's Glaive is 14 feet long, but it can attack out to 20'. The importance isn't in the relative lengths of the weapons; it is purely a mechanical process because this game isn't a simulation of reality. It does lots of things for mechanical balance over realism.

claudekennilol wrote:

And that's not right. If a character can wield a 20' long weapon then his reach is increased by 20'--regardless of the size of the weapon and regardless of the size of the wielder.

Specifically to Doom Hero's question, if you had a way of legally wielding a glaive that big, then your reach would be enhanced by the same distance as that of an appropriately-sized giant wielding it.

As I stated above, that doesn't work since a Large Glaive is only 14' long but a Large creature can use it to attack out to 20'. The length of the weapon doesn't determine the distance it can reach out to. Moreover, even if a Medium creature were to have a way to wield a 14' Glaive, it isn't going to be from the very end. He's not going to get the full 14' of functional length. he'd have to balance it properly by letting a good amount of it stick out the back. Again, it's a process of game mechanics, not a matter of realism.

Grand Lodge

Kazaan wrote:

claudekennilol wrote:

And that's not right. If a character can wield a 20' long weapon then his reach is increased by 20'--regardless of the size of the weapon and regardless of the size of the wielder.

Specifically to Doom Hero's question, if you had a way of legally wielding a glaive that big, then your reach would be enhanced by the same distance as that of an appropriately-sized giant wielding it.

As I stated above, that doesn't work since a Large Glaive is only 14' long but a Large creature can use it to attack out to 20'. The length of the weapon doesn't determine the distance it can reach out to. Moreover, even if a Medium creature were to have a way to wield a 14' Glaive, it isn't going to be from the very end. He's not going to get the full 14' of functional length. he'd have to balance it properly by letting a good amount of it stick out the back. Again, it's a process of game mechanics, not a matter of realism.

A large creature can already reach out to 10 feet.

And this is where we disagree. If I can "wield" a 14' glaive then I can wield it effectively how it was intended, with its full 14' of use. If I'm doing some odd sort of balancing act in order to use it then I'm not effectively wielding it and wouldn't get its use. When I say wield I mean use it how it was intended and not just "holding on to it". Thus I would get the same extended reach as if an appropriately sized creature were wielding it.


claudekennilol wrote:
And this is where we disagree. If I can "wield" a 14' glaive then I can wield it effectively how it was intended, with its full 14' of use. If I'm doing some odd sort of balancing act in order to use it then I'm not effectively wielding it and wouldn't get its use. When I say wield I mean use it how it was intended and not just "holding on to it". Thus I would get the same extended reach as if an appropriately sized creature were wielding it.

Again, inconsequential. It's a game of mechanical balance far more than a game of realism. Whether or not you could realistically reach out to 14' using the weapon doesn't matter because, mechanically, in the system of the game, reach doesn't work like that. It is based only on your character's own natural reach, regardless of the size of weapon he's using. If he's wielding a cestus and the cestus is, by some means, granted the reach property, the cestus now increases out to double the character's natural reach but omits the area normally covered by their natural reach. Period. End of story. The only exception granted is that, in the case of tiny or smaller creatures with 0' natural reach, you base the calculations on 5' reach and then subtract 5' for each category they are less than small. So Tiny creatures can attack out to 5' using a typical reach weapon or 10' using a whip. Diminutive creatures need a whip just to attack out to 5'. Fine creatures can't attack out of their square regardless of what they wield. This is only done because 0 x anything would equal 0 and the normal reach calculations would become broken. In other words, they have 5' natural reach -5', -10', or -15' based on their size.

Additionally, a Human has a natural reach of 5' but even wielding a 5' Greatsword, he can still attack out to 5'; it doesn't add 5' onto his natural reach of 5'. With a 7' Glaive, it doesn't add 7' onto his natural reach of 5' to yield 12' reach; he can only reach out to 10'. Even a small creature, also with 5' natural reach, wielding a 3.5' glaive can attack out to 10'. So your idea that a creature with 10' natural reach wielding a 14' weapon gets the full 14' added on to their natural 10' is patently absurd. Have you ever seen anyone wield a polearm? Even properly held, you're not holding it right from the very end of the pole with both hands, giving you all 3.5, 7, or 14 feet (depending on character size) of the weapon at your full disposal. Wielding a 7' glaive requires about 2/3 of its length for wielding, leaving only 2 1/3 feet of length as the "business end". Even with a "reaching grip", you're using a good third of the length from the base leaving 4 2/3 feet of "business end". By contrast, a 5' Greatsword would require just under a foot of that length for grip and hilt (and that's generous) leaving a good 4' business end. Even with as much as you can spare, a Glaive only has about 2/3 of a foot advantage over a Greatsword in terms of functional length. If anything has reach, it should be the Greatsword. It's a good thing Pathfinder isn't a simulationist game so we don't need to worry about stuff like that, though.


Loengrin wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
No. Reach weapons double your reach. It doesn't add a specific amount of reach.

Hum... Don't forget part of the sentence please : 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 for non typical small or medium wielder the rules don't apply, as well as for some reach weapons... No rules, meaning GM fiat...

When it says most, its meaning that most but not all of the reach weapons behave in acertain way. The whip effectively triples your reach. But its in the weaponz description.


Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Loengrin wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
No. Reach weapons double your reach. It doesn't add a specific amount of reach.

Hum... Don't forget part of the sentence please : 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 for non typical small or medium wielder the rules don't apply, as well as for some reach weapons... No rules, meaning GM fiat...

When it says most, its meaning that most but not all of the reach weapons behave in acertain way. The whip effectively triples your reach. But its in the weaponz description.

Or, in other words, use the default calculation provided unless the weapon itself explicitly specifies something different. If it doesn't explicitly specify something different, use the default rules. This is the exact opposite of "no rules, meaning GM fiat"; there quite clearly are rules, default rules to apply in all unspecified cases as well as the allowance for specific rules that outline exceptional situations. Now, if the weapon in question stated, "This weapon doesn't follow normal reach rules" but then never explained how it is different, that is a case for GM fiat. But I doubt one would find such a weapon.

Grand Lodge

Like I said before, my stance is firm and my interpretation is well within what's printed. Talk at me all you wish, but until the dev team comes in and says otherwise I won't be swayed.

Basically it comes down to that I can't believe your (yours as in anyone that thinks this way, I'm not pointing out anyone in particular) interpretation is correct because if I can extend my natural reach to say 20' and then equip a Glaive, it just doesn't make sense to say that I can now reach 40' (instead of 25') with a weapon that normally only extends my reach by 5'.

The "inappropriately sized weapon" just falls off as a logical extension of what the above implies.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What is the effective reach of oversized Reach weapons wielded by smaller creatures. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.