Greater Nightmare has 5ft reach?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems really odd when it's a huge creature, and a full size category over the regular nightmare which also has 5ft reach.
I couldn't find many instances of a huge creature having only 5ft reach. The Quetzalcoatlus has talons at 5ft, but it also has beak at 10. Both the Greater Nightmare's jaws and hoof are not given a range, so it defaults to 5ft, yeah?
Seems odd.


IMO, it's would default to the average for the size of the creature for unlisted reach, which for huge (long) is 10'. If you go by 5' average, you'll see tiny creatures getting a big boost with a 5' reach instead of a 0' reach as I checked several tiny creatures attacks and NONE list a reach.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If that were the intent, it'd be nice if it were explicitly said so.

The Demilich is actually specified to have reach 0ft with its jaws attack. As far as I can tell, it's the only tiny creature that specifies a reach, but it specifies the reach you would expect a tiny creature to have.
Additionally, a whole mess of large-tall creatures have their reach explicitly stated as 10 ft, the expected amount.


Ectar wrote:
If that were the intent, it'd be nice if it were explicitly said so.

Agreed, it's more from looking at the monsters and seeing a pattern: some monsters only list reach when at least one attack is out of the ordinary.

Ectar wrote:
Additionally, a whole mess of large-tall creatures have their reach explicitly stated as 10 ft, the expected amount.

My guess is that it's not always clear what's tall and what's long, so they often put the reach in. That can make the obvious ones, like the Greater Nightmare being long, stand out a bit when they don't print the reach.

If you really want a ruling, size is a trait so if a specific reach isn't listed you'd look at the typical reach from the size chart. The same way you wouldn't assume a missing reach would make a crawling hand have a 5' reach, the same thing is why you wouldn't think a huge Greater Nightmare has a 5' reach because it's not listed. The chart lists typical reaches for a reason. Basing it on the typical has more backing it that no reach listed means 5' [unless I'm missing a default reach someplace]. ;)

Dark Archive

Hmmmmm. Looking through the bestiaries 1 and 2, there is only one stat block with reach 5ft listed, and that's the gorilla, a large creature.
The demilich's reach 0 is also unique, as far as I see.
At least as far as I've found.
This also means that there are zero tiny creatures with a reach of 5ft listed. So either all tiny creatures have 5ft, because that's the assumption when a range isn't listed, or zero tiny creatures have 5ft reach and the reach 0ft of the demillich is extraneous.

But it also means that every single large-long creature has no reach listed because it's assumed, and every large-tall creatures has its reach specified.

I'm not sure what set of assumptions I like better.

For games that I run, I'll probably be going with: if a reach isn't listed, it's 5ft.

ps- The tiny trait doesn't actually give a "typical reach" the way that the other size traits do. It merely mentions that if a creature has reach 0ft it must enter another creature's square to attack it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ectar wrote:
ps- The tiny trait doesn't actually give a "typical reach" the way that the other size traits do. It merely mentions that if a creature has reach 0ft it must enter another creature's square to attack it.

Size, Space, and Reach, Core Rulebook pg. 473

"Table 9–1 also lists the typical reach for creatures of each size, for both tall creatures (most bipeds) and long creatures (most quadrupeds)."

Table 9–1
Tiny reach 0 feet (tall), 0 feet (long)

Size, Space, and Reach

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Greater Nightmare has 5ft reach? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.