Hey so our group thinks weve been doing reach wrong? Hopefully you guys can help :D
If i put a reach weapon on my medium sized paladin giving myself a reach of 10ft. Can i atk adjacent squares? or bc i HAVE reach can i no longer hit enemies that close and can only hit in a 10ft perimeter?
No, you cannot attack adjacent squares with your reach weapon.
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
Note that you could still attack adjacent foes with some other attack, such as a kick or a bite, you simply cannot use the reach weapon against an adjacent foe.
Or just take a 5' Step backward and use your reach weapon since the enemy is no longer adjacent.
You cannot hit adjacent enemies with a reach weapon, without special abilities to allow you to do so.
Yes, you can essentially only hit enemies in a 10ft perimeter.
However, you can use armor spikes to threaten and attack at the 5ft range. But obviously they must be enhanced and used separately from your reach weapon.
You can't use that reach weapon against adjacent squares unless you use the shaft as an improvised weapon. Take spiked gauntlets and you can use them against adjacent opponents normally.
For medium sized characters, using a reach weapon means you threaten, and can attack into, the 2nd square away from your character (i.e. 5~10 feet out). You do not threaten, and can not attack, adjacent squares with the reach weapon as normally wielded (but there's a FAQ about short hafting a reach weapon as an improvised weapon that you can do).
If the person has reach because of size, like a large ogre, then they threaten both adjacent and out to 10 feet simultaneously.
Thanks for the quick reply!
An important facet of the FAQ that allows you to use a reach weapon as a improvised weapon and attack adjacent squares is that is loses all enhancement bonuses when used in that way aside from being downgraded to a critical range of 20 x2 and dealing damage appropriate for whatever improvised weapon it most closesly resembles.
It should be pointed out that some weapons are exceptions to this rule. The whip, for example:
The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don't threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes).
So yeah, if you're going to do a reach build, Improved Unarmed Strike is probably going to be pretty valuable as your "oh crap, they just got too close!" backup (since you can keep both hands on your reach weapon and skill kick 'em in the head).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a post that answers a very similar question, links to a hilarious youtube video that explains Attacks of Opportunity, explains a bit about playing with reach weaponry, and teaches the basics of reach tactics. I suggest players new to reach weapons, or those trying to fix errors, read the entire thread.
It's very common for players contemplating reach weaponry to be very concerned about threatening adjacent. Oddly, while it seems like this should be important, it's not tactically important for a reach weapon wielder to threaten adjacent. Again, it seems like this should be important, but experience teaches that it just ain't so. Consider this: do characters who only threaten adjacent worry about how they can threaten at reach? If not, why should characters who threaten at reach worry about how they can threaten adjacent? After all, a reach weapon threatens 16 squares, while a non-reach weapon only threatens 8 squares.
Another note about reach weapons: nowhere in the Pathfinder rules does it say anything about how reach weapons boost your defenses and protect nearby allies. That's because it's a tactical thing, and the rules do not discuss tactics. Reach weaponry definitely does provide a defensive benefit. My experience is that the defensive value of a reach weapon is generally (but not always) much greater than the defensive value of a shield.
Finally note that, historically speaking, reach weapons tended to be Primary Battlefield Weapons while weapons like Swords and Axes tended to be sidearms, aka secondary weapons. Just remember that, if you choose to carry a reach weapon, you must actually carry it always. A longspear does not fit in a backpack and can not be 'scabbarded'. Convenience is the primary advantage of a sword over a longspear. In terms of combat mechanics, the longspear is usually quite superior [Youtube sparring match: note that these guys are equally matched, it's the weapons that make the difference] to most non-reach options , even though it might not seem that way if one only looks at the weapon charts.
|
|
P.s. In the above linked Youtube fencing video there's an excellent slow-motion example of an Attack of Opportunity (provoked by movement out of a threatened square) at 5:50. One can almost see the rapier-and-buckler guy getting frustrated at his inability to close the gap. One can see where he switches from 5' step to Move Action, in an attempt to close 'the gap', and gets impaled through the torso for his trouble. There's also a moment, at 5:07, where the rapier guy clearly gets inside the 'reach bubble' of the spear guy delivers a hard slicing blow. This video, at 7:46 length, represents about 100 rounds of Pathfinder combat.
|
It's very common for players contemplating reach weaponry to be very concerned about threatening adjacent. Oddly, while it seems like this should be important, it's not tactically important for a reach weapon wielder to threaten adjacent. Again, it seems like this should be important, but experience teaches that it just ain't so. Consider this: do characters who only threaten adjacent worry about how they can threaten at reach? If not, why should characters who threaten at reach worry about how they can threaten adjacent? After all, a reach weapon threatens 16 squares, while a non-reach weapon only threatens 8 squares.
Mainly because they don't always understand the best tactics of their weapon, or they are getting overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
If you don't use the reach to do battlefield control around yourself, having a local combat option is important.
And, of course, if you have other issues with opponents over multiple rounds, it can be important to have adjacent options.
Round 1: Trip opponent moving in on you.
Round 2: Opponent stands up, AoO doesn't kill them or incapacitate them.
5' step adjacent to you.
At this point, if you don't have some sort of adjacent attack ability, you can be in serious trouble. In the same way that, as long as your target doesn't have reach, you don't have to deal with the AoO for tripping or disarming them when they aren't adjacent to you, they don't have to deal with the AoO provoked by disarming you, tripping you, bullrushing you, grappling you, or even casting a spell with a ranged touch attack for two AoOs you will never get to take.
Reach is great. Being able to deal with the issues that can arise if someone still manages to base you? Priceless.
|
Another thing to consider about threatening adjacent with a reach weapon: it makes it harder for people to escape you.
Is a caster or archer causing problems? Move adjacent and attack with your close option. If they 5ft step away, they're still in your reach. For an character with a good UAS it's like getting multiple feats for free. EDIT: probably not nearly as useful for your paladin but still a good option to have since some of the options for threatening adjacent easy & cheap.
|
|
Here's what happened recently when my PC reach fighter aggressively pretended to threaten adjacent, but did not :-) It's true that threatening adjacent occasionally comes up. It might be a 1% to 5% factor, depending on tactics and play style. It's just nowhere near as important as many people seem to think, and barely worthy of consideration. It's usually possible to move such that it makes no difference. It's usually a secondary or tertiary factor.
Whirlwind Attack, which allows one to attack each foe in reach, is something of a special case. My new [CORE] fighter, who is taking the Whirlwind Attack feat chain, will make the effort to threaten adjacent.
I guess that means I'll end the experiment and stop tracking when not threatening adjacent makes a difference. During the hundred-plus Pathfinder fights where I tracked it I observed about a 1% difference.
And, of course, if you have other issues with opponents over multiple rounds, it can be important to have adjacent options.Round 1: Trip opponent moving in on you.
Round 2: Opponent stands up, AoO doesn't kill them or incapacitate them.
5' step adjacent to you.
At this point, if you don't have some sort of adjacent attack ability, you can be in serious trouble.
I'm not sure how serious the trouble is.
Round 1: no damage was done by anyone.
Round 2: I hit him with an AoO, he stands up (moves), 5' steps, and single-attacks (standard action). I then 5' step back and full attack on him, getting a potentially unbelievable number of iteratives on him -- minus the one I use to trip him again.
Round 3: same as round 2.
I'm trading one of several iterative attacks for his move action AND I get the iterative attack back when he stands up, so I'm really trading nothing for something. He attacks once to my three times (or whatever). I'm not sure that I'm the one in serious trouble.
|
So yeah, if you're going to do a reach build, Improved Unarmed Strike is probably going to be pretty valuable as your "oh crap, they just got too close!" backup (since you can keep both hands on your reach weapon and skill kick 'em in the head).
Or save the feat and have armor spikes. Besides - you can let go and re-grab it with the second hand as a free action anyway if you want to use a spiked gauntlet instead.
|
|
So yeah, if you're going to do a reach build, Improved Unarmed Strike is probably going to be pretty valuable as your "oh crap, they just got too close!" backup (since you can keep both hands on your reach weapon and skill kick 'em in the head).
Is this true for anyone with the feat? I thought it was only a monk class feature.
|
|
Improved Unarmed Strike (IUS). There is a FAQ where the devs confirm that one does not need a free hand to use IUS. So, yes, kick 'em in the head.
P.s. Rules Question: can one take a 5' step in the middle of a Whirlwind Attack routine, or not? Didn't find a definitive answer in the rules forum. My search fu must be weak today. If 5' step is allowed this would expand the possible target area from 24 squares to 33 squares, given 5' and 10' reach. I guess 5' step is not allowed. Please advise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P.s. Rules Question: can one take a 5' step in the middle of a Whirlwind Attack routine, or not? Didn't find a definitive answer in the rules forum. My search fu must be weak today. If 5' step is allowed this would expand the possible target area from 24 squares to 33 squares, given 5' and 10' reach. I guess 5' step is not allowed. Please advise.
The Core Rulebook says this:
"You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round."
Based on that, and no definitive contradiction from Whirlwind Attack, I would say that you CAN, in fact, take the 5' Step during the whirlwind.
But...
From a metagame perspective, this does seem overpowered, allowing more attacks than the feat would seem to indicate.
Further...
Whirlwind Attack says:
"Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent."
It doesn't say "within reach including incidental movement" or any such thing. In fact, this bolded part can be, and possibly should be, read to really mean "against each opponent within reach when you initiate the action". After all, en opponent who is only within reach after you move 5' is not actually within reach.
So based on that, as a GM, I would rule that the targets must all be within reach when you start the whirlwind.
|
|
It's true that threatening adjacent occasionally comes up. It might be a 1% to 5% factor, depending on tactics and play style.
I think it can be quite a bit more than a 5% factor depending on playstyle. In the second-last combat my reach character was engaged in, narrow twisty spaces made it difficult for me to maneuver into reach range, and when it was possible, my opponent got cover. The GM also generally likes to use ranged attackers which makes that cozying up trick I mentioned much more applicable.
I wouldn't worry too much about threatening adjacent for most builds, but when armour spikes cost just 50gp and as a paladin OP is going to be wearing armour - why the heck not?