Reaching for reach...


Rules Questions

Sczarni

Looking for moral support for the following:

Have a player with Titan Fighter (not Mauler) using an oversized two-handed sword. He keeps bringing up that he thinks it is "unfavorable" that he doesn't get reach with it, since it is most probably 10' long.

I have explained to him the fact that a normal 8' sword doesn't give you reach, and what would 2' more do?

I have explained to him that a medium creature fights with a reach based on its size, thus to not overextend themselves and suffer sudden death when a person ledge walks up his 4" wide blade with an acrobatics check and face stomps him...

I have explained that swinging a sword at full arm extension would result in a lot longer swing and thus allow attacks of opportunity against the one wielding it, while they attempt to follow through on their power attack for the other 10 feet of an extended swing (10' swing goes through 5 squares instead of 3... depending on the whole "diagonal reach" issue also inherent to Pathfinder). And there is no way to effectively fight without a weapon designed to do so at that range because the weapons not designed to do so are too big and bulky (and thus don't have "reach" in their description, regardless of size).

I have explained that the FEAT which allows him to use a 2-H oversized weapon lets him break the basic rules of physics, and he should be happy with that. Since the FEAT doesn't say he gets additional reach, he doesn't... because that is not how the FEAT breaks the rules for him.

Still not happy after this and several other explanations because, apparently his SCA experience trumps my Fencing training. I know you don't extend yourself without risk of injury... he claims that he'd be fine with a large weapon... I know better... because I've seen saber, foil, and other fights... and you get hit A LOT with BIG SLOW WEAPONS. I also know that LUNGE is a taught skill, and not an automatic function of the size of the weapon you wield (did I mention I have actual Fencing training?). I've tried to explain this and he simply doesn't want to accept it as anything other than "a stupid Pathfinder rule."

So we've (the other players) have just said "yes, it is just PF, it is the game, let's move on." I on the other hand have stated that he won't accept it simply because he doesn't want to... not that it doesn't make sense. Explained five different ways... "Yes. It is just PF. It is the game. Not you. Let's move on."

UGH. Thanks for listening and any input regarding this would be appreciated. But no, I am not going to argue with people that "he should get added reach" when he has a consort (just hit level 7) that can cast Enlarge Person on him... (another eventual suggestion I gave)


maouse wrote:
Looking for moral support

Prepare to be disappointed!

maouse wrote:
rest of post...

Wow, I stand corrected. You do need moral support. You explained it very clearly with both rules and logic, not to mention that you are a person who is highly educated to talk about this exact matter. He reminds me of the munchkin card "Whine at GM, gain a level!"

You mention the word lunge, and I have a solution for you (since he's lv 7). Have him take the lunge feat. That way he can fairly gain reach and everybody is happy.

I hope this helps!


No cause the GM says so and the game says so (or at least doesn't say you can, which is important the rules don't ban things- they allow you to do things; that is how this is written, since the devs can't anticipate every single thing they need to ban). That is rule 0 and rule 1.

This is not SCA. This is not fencing. This is a table top game where the rules are largely arbitrary, based upon someone's notions of style and balance.

Also, you could easily say he doesn't get the full 10' of reach, since he needs to put his hands further down (typically on the ricasso) just to handle this bloody thing since it is massively over sized and unbalanced for his stature. That might be the entire thing about the feat- getting past the regular designed functions of the weapon (since they were designed for larger creatures) and just finding a way that works for you.

Sidenote- as one of the many armchair critics you will find in this thread... yeah... the usual "are you sure you want to play table top games with this person?" cliche. He might be a good guy otherwise... but he doesn't seem to understand the representational nature of the game, how it was written from a layman's perspective (more based off pop culture than anything- see how longswords can't pierce, cause errol flynn), and the various other concessions made for various reasons. Either he needs to accept this, or you guys should find a more simulation based game if you want to keep gaming together (not that I think that'll help- but this is me commenting on guys I don't know...)


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
maouse wrote:
Looking for moral support

Prepare to be disappointed!

maouse wrote:
rest of post...

Wow, I stand corrected. You do need moral support. You explained it very clearly with both rules and logic, not to mention that you are a person who is highly educated to talk about this exact matter. He reminds me of the munchkin card "Whine at GM, gain a level!"

You mention the word lunge, and I have a solution for you (since he's lv 7). Have him take the lunge feat. That way he can fairly gain reach and everybody is happy.

Unless the player is trying to get reach for the AoOs. Lunge only extends your reach during your turn.


@Gisher - Correct. If he wants to make use of reach for AoO's, he's going to need enlarge or a reach weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And it sounds to me like this player wants the whole enchilada. :)

I've become a fan of the Long Arm spell: faster casting time than Enlarge Person, works on non-"persons" like tieflings, and doesn't lower your DEX and take away a potential AoO from combat reflexes.


Either long arm or enlarge person combined with a permanency spell (and 2500gp) could give him the reach.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Either long arm or enlarge person combined with a permanency spell (and 2500gp) could give him the reach.

I don't see where the books say that Long Arm works with Permanency. Is it from errata not yet in the PRD?


I've always done permanency in a case-by-case basis, leaving it up to GM discretion. I don't think long arm is an unreasonable spell to allow permanencied.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I've always done permanency in a case-by-case basis, leaving it up to GM discretion. I don't think long arm is an unreasonable spell to allow permanencied.

I see. It might not be unreasonable, but it sure could be freaky.


Gisher wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I've always done permanency in a case-by-case basis, leaving it up to GM discretion. I don't think long arm is an unreasonable spell to allow permanencied.
I see. It might not be unreasonable, but it sure could be freaky.

Long arm is now banned in my games. All of them. No exceptions. Rule 0.


Gisher wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I've always done permanency in a case-by-case basis, leaving it up to GM discretion. I don't think long arm is an unreasonable spell to allow permanencied.
I see. It might not be unreasonable, but it sure could be freaky.

ARRRRGH!!!!! WHY? WHYYYYYY?!? The HUMANITY! MY EYES, MY POOR EYES!


He wants reach. Give it to him. Let him be happy with his character.


Lifat wrote:
Gisher wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I've always done permanency in a case-by-case basis, leaving it up to GM discretion. I don't think long arm is an unreasonable spell to allow permanencied.
I see. It might not be unreasonable, but it sure could be freaky.
ARRRRGH!!!!! WHY? WHYYYYYY?!? The HUMANITY! MY EYES, MY POOR EYES!

;)


Kchaka wrote:
He wants reach. Give it to him. Let him be happy with his character.

That is a horrible policy when it comes to handling whiny players.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Kchaka wrote:
He wants reach. Give it to him. Let him be happy with his character.
That is a horrible policy when it comes to handling whiny players.

Or even those who aren't whiny. People value things more when the have to spend more resources to get them. Monty Hall campaigns are always fun at first, but my experience is that they are ultimately unfulfilling. The player has ways to get reach, but they have costs. In the long run, making him pay those costs is probably to his benefit.


Ok then, do what the players want, and when they realize it's not fun, Then you propose playing with weaker characters for a bigger challenge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey...hey...I have a question.

Why can't he use a reach weapon if he wants reach?

He can already use oversized 2 handed weapons. There is absolutely nothing stopping him from use a reach weapon if he wants that mechanics. You know...like everybody else?

No....he wants 3d6 (plus whatever size junk he can throw on) and 19-20/x2 (or maybe some high crit thing like nodachi), as well as reach. He just wants to engineer his dream weapon. I really do not want to examine this more, because I will convince myself more and more that this is munchkinism.


Tell him if he finds rules that grant him reach, he can have it.

If the rules don't allow for it, and he doesn't like that... he can:

1)accept it
2)contact Paizo and try to get it changed
3)not accept it and complain or quit.

Those are his options, show them to him.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Reaching for reach... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.