| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So I was looking at the ways reach weapons increases where you threaten, and it seems like they increase threatening squares by the natural threat range of the tall version of the baseline creatures - small or medium adds 5', as their natural range is 5', large adds 10', huge 15', and so on... if wielded by the appropriate sized creatures.
But where I'm a little lost is what if you're wielding an inappropriately sized weapon, say you're a titan fighter, a tiefling with the oversized hands variant, or a titan mauler with a GM who doesn't hate you and goes pre-nerf? I was told by one person that it is in the hand of the wielded, since small reach weapons can be wielded one handed at a penalty for the same threat zone...BUT small reach weapons have the same threat range in small wielders, too, as small creatures have the same threat zone as medium anyway.
Where it gets confusing is when you get to large sized stuff. A large creature with a large reach weapon has +10' for a 15-20' range...So would a medium creature with a large reach weapon have +10 for 15' range? Or the usual +5' for 10' despite it being a bigger weapon?
inappropriately sized reach weapons = no reach.
Got a citation for this?
As far as I can see, you can use inappropriately sized reach weapons just fine. There's nothing in the reach or weapon size rules text to back you up there.
OP:
"Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe."
"Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can't strike at their natural reach or less"
Rules as written, larger creatures get the reach as a property of their size, not the weapon size. An inappropriately sized weapon carried by a medium character would only apply the first sentence, which gives them standard reach.
Yes, this creates silly situations where you can wield tiny weapons but still get normal reach from them. The GM should probably houserule in this instance. OTherwise the rule works fine: presumably inappropriately sized reach weapons are too unwieldy to be used to get more than the normal extra reach afforded by their special property (IE 10ft reach for medium critters).
The size of the reach weapon is not relevant to the reach it grants (assuming you can use it...see the rules on inappropriately sized weapons).
Example: A small Longspear in the hands of a medium wielder is a one handed reach weapon with a -2 attack penalty and does 1d6 damage.
The reach with the weapon is identical to a medium Longspear, 10feet, in the hands of a medium wielder.
Example 2: A large Longspear in the hands of a medium wielder (wielder is a level 1 Titan Fighter) has a -4 attack penalty and does 2d6 damage.
Again, the reach with the weapon is identical to a medium Longspear, 10feet, in the hands of a medium wielder.
Does it make real world sense? No. But this is Pathfinder, not the real world and this is how the rules work.
The size of the reach weapon is not relevant to the reach it grants (assuming you can use it...see the rules on inappropriately sized weapons).
...
Again, the reach with the weapon is identical to a medium Longspear, 10feet, in the hands of a medium wielder.
Does it make real world sense? No. But this is Pathfinder, not the real world and this is how the rules work.
This is also why if you could somehow wield a Gargantuan Greatsword as a halfling you'd still only have 5ft reach with it, even though it's super big.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One way to make sense of the reach of a weapon is to see it as being an extension of the character wielding it; while a medium barbarian may be able to use a huge longspear to technically reach a spot 15ft away, because of how cumbersome it is, they cannot do so effectively enough to qualify for the in-game-rules-word 'reach' while doing so. The larger creatures not only have longer arms (their natural reach) — they also have mobility and the ability to balance and change their center of gravity while swinging appropriately sized objects around. A huge creature's longspear may be wielded, but physics would preclude you (a small or medium character) from extending one past a certain point. The real reason most people want reach is for AoO's, and can you really imagine a small character ever being able to overcome the inertia of a gargantuan weapon fast enough to swat at someone as an immediate action? Obviously, this begins to break down once high-level characters and magic gets involved, but I generally don't think we should travel down the JRPG route of ridiculous weapon-sizes.
People are welcome to house-rule things as they see fit, obviously, but that's my take on it.
Mr. Angry Dwarf cannot wield a fine sized longspear. He, at best, could use a tiny sized longspear.
*grins*
|
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.
This does not explicitly state that inappropriately sized reach weapons don't grant normal reach, but it does raise the possibility that there might be more specific rules somewhere. In 3.5 was a rules clarification that stated:
A wielder gains no reach from a reach weapon that is too small. No additional reach is granted by a reach weapon that is too big.
Since this rule has never been replicated in PF it is not clear whether the intent was to carry it over or whether the wording under reach weapons was merely copied.
As-is RAW would say you get the same benefit from a reach weapon of any size (stating the possibility that an exception could exist does not itself establish an exception). Were it to come up in my home games I would probably use the 3.5 rule or something similar.
Good find Weirdo. I would probably houserule something similar although I might make an exception for small weapons (if you are medium) since the reach between small and medium is the same.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
inappropriately sized reach weapons = no reach.So, using a Large Whip, means you can only attack adjacent opponents?
The Titan Fighter, wields a Large Longspear, but can only attack adjacent opponents?
I get there is a "it doesn't say I can't" defense, but there is a rule in reach weapons saying "reach weapon of the appropriate size" and there is a clear understanding of that meaning.
In your examples, a Large Whip in the hands of Medium PC could be:
1) Appropriate Sized so grants reach while a small Whip in the medium's hands would not.
2) Inappropriate Sized so no reach, because the weapon is Large and the PC is Medium.
James Risner, I think you are reaching (pun intended). The "rule" you are quoting is incomplete and does not explain itself. It is mostly an example and as Weirdo pointed out, the companion clarification is missing.
If we are to read it as writ then it only applies to large creatures.
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.
So the bolded line brings up some questions:
1) What is a "non-typical" Large creature? (I actually know the answer, I am just pointing out a term without a definition which may confuse people without years of history in the 3.X/PF ruleset. The answer is someone like a Centaur.)2) Does the bolded line apply to other sized creatures? As writ, it is Large only.
3) What is the penalty for inappropriately sized reach weapons? (Ie: this answer should be what the 3.5 rules clarification came up with.)
It is worth noting that the exact same phrasing is used in the 3.5 PHB and clearly this was a question so things were clarified in the Rules Compendium:
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.
A wielder gains no reach from a reach weapon that is too small. No additional reach is granted by a reach weapon that is too big.
My point here is that you cannot state there is a clear understanding. There wasn't in 3.5 (they had to clarify it), and there isn't in Pathfinder.
There is no RAW stating that the passage applies to anyone but Large creatures and it does not state what happens when you wield an inappropriately sized weapon (either smaller or larger).|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Fair enough. There isn't a clear understanding. It is more like there isn't any detailed rules, and there is one example of a large creature that requires appropriately sized weapons to gain reach.
What I meant by clear understanding, is that without a rule saying how it works we can't assume it works one way or another. Since there is no RAW we can't say "RAW it works this way" or "RAW it works that way". The only rule we have on the matter in Pathfinder is the one saying it must be appropriately sized if you are large.
Note: I should point out that this isn't something new. This topic has came up many times in the past and that line Weirdo first quoted has been quoted an nausea in previous threads. This is a very old concept/issue/flaw/ambiguous part of the rules.
|
|
Good find Weirdo. I would probably houserule something similar although I might make an exception for small weapons (if you are medium) since the reach between small and medium is the same.
Likewise. I'd also let tiny creatures threaten 5' with a reach weapon (not the case in 3.5 as the link indicates).
But yes, pathfinder RAW does get unclear about reach weapons for anyone other than a small+ creature with a weapon matching their size.
James Risner, there are many flaws in the Pathfinder rules that were fixed in 3.5 but because of the port to PF got 'unfixed'. I accept this but it would be nice if the Devs worked to fix the flaws. Those people new to PF without the 3.5 base to work from are unaware of many of the fixes.
Heck, even basic definitions were left out. That causes no small amount of problems for some new people. (Example: the problem with Positive and Negative energy due to a lack of definition.)
Weirdo, the Whip issue also needs to be fixed. What is the reach of a tiny creature using a whip? What is the reach of a Large creature using a whip? The only definition is 15' (not double natural reach).
It's one of those weird things that happens with sizing..
Personally, I'm not okay with one-handed reach weapons (whip not withstanding) being finalged by using small spears. It's metagamey BS.
With the exception of the whip, there aren't any one handed reach weapons (that I can think of). Oh, the dwarven dorn deger if you pick up like 3 feats.
I believe the Flickmace, is an One-handed Reach weapon.
The Lance can be wielded in one hand, and it has reach
Let's not forget the Titan Mauler, and Phalanx Fighter.
The lance is a two-handed weapon that can be wield in one hand, while mounted. It is again a special exception.
As for the classes, those are special abilities of the classes, intend to make such options available.
Picking up a small size spear shouldn't make you able to use it as a one handed reach weapon.
Titan mauler and phalanx fighter can one-hand what would usually be a two-handed reach weapon of regular size.