a longspear, a rogue and monkey grip. [Archive] - Wizards Community

a longspear, a rogue and monkey grip. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
HaroldTheBarrel
07-09-07, 11:43 AM hi all,

last session we had much fun, and namely because of our rogue's weapon of choice. ( you know all these "wow, you have a really long stick over there" jokes.
clearly, we're a bunch of teenagers.)

but anyway, All he did, was to choose monkey grip, and start killing stuff from a distance, while sometimes using sneak attack as a benefit, but not the main damage. Also, he has been talking to the party sorcerer to put Enlarge person on his for extended benefit, and I help him even more, summoning things behind the enemy to help him flank(im a druid).Is it all legal? I checked it out but didn't find anything wrong with it. In our party, it isn't a problem because we don't have any serious powergamers, but I can see what this could lead to, if he was a fighter or barbarian, using longspear or spiked chain, with monkey grip and combat reflexes, maybe with enlarge person, this would be very much more powerful than, say greatsword. Yes as I understand, they would still be far below casters, but would own things with axes and swords. Is it just me, or are reach weapons easily superior to usual weapons?

besides game mechanics viewpoint, it seems just silly, that 5 feet 2 inches elf rogue "sneak attacks" someone with a 12 feet pointy stick.

But im not complaining, we had fun, this made our party a little stronger without disrupting the party balance much, and generally no harm came from it.

I'm only posting because I can see what that could lead to with a little of that whatever they call it in here, "munchkinism" or something like that.
Meep326
07-09-07, 11:47 AM Completely within the rules, I had a rogue that used a Spiked Chain, much fun.
Leilond
07-09-07, 11:47 AM You're combining the power of a feat, with the power of a two spell (enlarge person and summon XXX)... I don't find nothing wrong with the fact the the result is powerfull
You've to consider that "summon" and "enarge" are "1 round casting time" that make the caster the "first ranged target" for an entire round: the first fireball will be for them, and let's see your concentration modifier ;)

By the way, it's a good combo, but you use different resources to obtain it
jaelis
07-09-07, 12:16 PM Just to be clear, monkey grip doesn't help extend your reach... the extra reach is based on your size, not the weapon's size. So he would have 10 ft reach normally, or 20 ft enlarged. Monkey grip is really just a flavor feat, it's hard to get a mechanical advantage out of it.

But yes, reach is really good.
HaroldTheBarrel
07-09-07, 12:21 PM is it true, that with large longspear you don't have 15 ft reach and 20 with enlarged? if it is so, please include ruling about it. Then it is still quite powerful, but he chose monkey grip pointlessly.
jaelis
07-09-07, 01:03 PM if it is so, please include ruling about it.
As you wish...

How do reach weapons work if they are of a different size than the creature wielding them? Say, an ogre wielding a Small or Medium glaive, or a human with the Monkey Grip feat wielding a Large ranseur? What is the reach for each situation?

A reach weapon doubles its wielder’s natural reach, but only if the weapon is at least of an appropriate size for the wielder. Wielding a “too-small” reach weapon grants no reach.

An ogre (Large) wielding a Medium or smaller reach weapon gains no reach from the weapon, and could thus attack foes either 5 feet or 10 feet distant (as normal for a Large creature wielding a non-reach weapon).

A human (Medium) wielding a Large or larger reach weapon could attack a creature 10 feet away (but no further), and could not use the weapon to attack a creature 5 feet away (as normal for a Medium creature wielding a reach weapon). A human wielding a Small reach weapon would gain no reach from the weapon.

The Player’s Handbook isn’t as clear on this as it could be, although an example of reach in action on page 113 in the Player’s Handbook provides pretty strong support: “A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away . . .” [italics
added]. While this reference doesn’t mention the ability to wield a reach weapon larger than the appropriate size, allowing such a weapon to grant reach to its wielder is a reasonable extension of the spirit and intent of the rule.
fatal error
07-09-07, 04:29 PM However, his reach with Enlarge will indeed be 20ft, because it will become 10ft base, doubled by reach.
tarkin
07-09-07, 05:06 PM It should be noted that damage/reach d20 style are treated exactly opposite to the real world with regards to weapon size.

That is: In the real world, getting a bigger muscle powered weapon does NOT increase your damage, but does increase your reach.

In d20 game rules getting a bigger muscle powered weapon increases damage but does not increase your reach.
unusualsuspect
07-09-07, 06:18 PM RAW, it seems that ANY inappropriately sized weapon removes the benefits of having reach... this means, highly counterintuitively, that a medium creature wielding a large longspear is going to have a reach of 5 ft.

Given the FAQ (and basic common sense), it would be reasonable to allow reach with a weapon inappropriately sized IF it's sized too large.
DM-Scott
07-10-07, 02:52 AM Here's an odd question that while I know it's not rules-ok, I was wondering. Is it just me, or does anyone else find the fact that a human using a halfling sized longspear lacks the usual 10ft reach a bit odd? I mean, a halfling is smaller than a human, and with a smaller longspear obtains the same REACH as a human wielding a human sized longspear.

I haven't house ruled a change in my games for it or anything. But I do wonder if other people find it odd.
RavenDrake
07-10-07, 04:52 AM I've said in my games that using a larger than your size reach weapon still grants you reach(that's reach according to your size).

Now, I've also houseruled that if you use a weapon no more than one size smaller with reach in exactly the same manner as you would for a weapon of your size, that it still grants reach(for example, using a small longspear two-handed as a medium character). Using it in one hand means that, for the sake of balance, you would have to grip it in such a way that you no longer have enough viable length of weapon to gain the benefit of reach(or at least that's my explaination).
tarkin
07-10-07, 10:45 AM Here's an odd question that while I know it's not rules-ok, I was wondering. Is it just me, or does anyone else find the fact that a human using a halfling sized longspear lacks the usual 10ft reach a bit odd? I mean, a halfling is smaller than a human, and with a smaller longspear obtains the same REACH as a human wielding a human sized longspear.

I haven't house ruled a change in my games for it or anything. But I do wonder if other people find it odd.

The odd thing is that HALFLINGS get reach. They should not get reach. It is enough that they have normal 5ft reach, they are smaller than humans and should not get reach witha reach weapon.

RavenDrake, you are trying for realism. Question - are you just making a power grab? If you REALLY want realism than admit that using a bigger weapon does NOT increase your damage.

Damage is caused by the energy applied. The energy comes from my muscles.

Any one that has used a real sword will tell you that if you double the weight, you half the speed that you can use the weapon.

End result is if your muscles are the same size, then as long as youre weapon is at least 6 inches long, greater size will NOT increase the damage done.

But it will let you attack your enemey before they can hit you (I.e. - more reach)
Leilond
07-10-07, 11:27 AM The odd thing is that HALFLINGS get reach. They should not get reach. It is enough that they have normal 5ft reach, they are smaller than humans and should not get reach witha reach weapon.

RavenDrake, you are trying for realism. Question - are you just making a power grab? If you REALLY want realism than admit that using a bigger weapon does NOT increase your damage.

Damage is caused by the energy applied. The energy comes from my muscles.

Any one that has used a real sword will tell you that if you double the weight, you half the speed that you can use the weapon.

End result is if your muscles are the same size, then as long as youre weapon is at least 6 inches long, greater size will NOT increase the damage done.

But it will let you attack your enemey before they can hit you (I.e. - more reach)

Well... I'm sorry, but the damage come from the weapon weight and not only by your muscle.
Energy is "E = mv^2" and "m" is the weight of the object
All the "heavy weapon" mechanincs are based on "using the weight of the weapon", so the logic issue work

The things that sounds funny is "you want logic and play D&D"? I will be more concearned about balance
Someone
07-10-07, 12:46 PM There is a point at which you can't swing any faster, no matter how much lighter your weapon. If you are already at the upper limit on how fast you can swing, doubling the weight shouldn't necessarily halve the speed.

Also, I assume by "a bigger (heavier) weapon increases your reach" you mean by inches, not by feet. A D&D reach weapon is an example of a specially designed weapon for more distant attacks, and isn't simply a heavier weapon. And I would say that increased length translates into leverage, so you can do more damage.
RavenDrake
07-11-07, 04:58 AM I'm not trying for "realism". Otherwise I would gut the combat system, and start from scratch with a system more conducive to reality. And, quite frankly, I fail to see how this is a "power grab".

It's simply a houserule for a situation that came up in a game of mine: Fighting kobolds with longspears, the fighter grabbed one of the fallen kobold's weapons and asked if he held the weapon like a kobold, towhit as a two-handed weapon rather than a one handed weapon, if he could keep the reach component. I agreed; he still retained the improper size penalty to attacks and the weapon's reduced damage, but he got reach which he used to keep him out of harm's way.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
HaroldTheBarrel 07-09-07, 11:43 AM	hi all, last session we had much fun, and namely because of our rogue's weapon of choice. ( you know all these "wow, you have a really long stick over there" jokes. clearly, we're a bunch of teenagers.) but anyway, All he did, was to choose monkey grip, and start killing stuff from a distance, while sometimes using sneak attack as a benefit, but not the main damage. Also, he has been talking to the party sorcerer to put Enlarge person on his for extended benefit, and I help him even more, summoning things behind the enemy to help him flank(im a druid).Is it all legal? I checked it out but didn't find anything wrong with it. In our party, it isn't a problem because we don't have any serious powergamers, but I can see what this could lead to, if he was a fighter or barbarian, using longspear or spiked chain, with monkey grip and combat reflexes, maybe with enlarge person, this would be very much more powerful than, say greatsword. Yes as I understand, they would still be far below casters, but would own things with axes and swords. Is it just me, or are reach weapons easily superior to usual weapons? besides game mechanics viewpoint, it seems just silly, that 5 feet 2 inches elf rogue "sneak attacks" someone with a 12 feet pointy stick. But im not complaining, we had fun, this made our party a little stronger without disrupting the party balance much, and generally no harm came from it. I'm only posting because I can see what that could lead to with a little of that whatever they call it in here, "munchkinism" or something like that.
Meep326 07-09-07, 11:47 AM	Completely within the rules, I had a rogue that used a Spiked Chain, much fun.
Leilond 07-09-07, 11:47 AM	You're combining the power of a feat, with the power of a two spell (enlarge person and summon XXX)... I don't find nothing wrong with the fact the the result is powerfull You've to consider that "summon" and "enarge" are "1 round casting time" that make the caster the "first ranged target" for an entire round: the first fireball will be for them, and let's see your concentration modifier ;) By the way, it's a good combo, but you use different resources to obtain it
jaelis 07-09-07, 12:16 PM	Just to be clear, monkey grip doesn't help extend your reach... the extra reach is based on your size, not the weapon's size. So he would have 10 ft reach normally, or 20 ft enlarged. Monkey grip is really just a flavor feat, it's hard to get a mechanical advantage out of it. But yes, reach is really good.
HaroldTheBarrel 07-09-07, 12:21 PM	is it true, that with large longspear you don't have 15 ft reach and 20 with enlarged? if it is so, please include ruling about it. Then it is still quite powerful, but he chose monkey grip pointlessly.
jaelis 07-09-07, 01:03 PM	if it is so, please include ruling about it. As you wish... How do reach weapons work if they are of a different size than the creature wielding them? Say, an ogre wielding a Small or Medium glaive, or a human with the Monkey Grip feat wielding a Large ranseur? What is the reach for each situation? A reach weapon doubles its wielder’s natural reach, but only if the weapon is at least of an appropriate size for the wielder. Wielding a “too-small” reach weapon grants no reach. An ogre (Large) wielding a Medium or smaller reach weapon gains no reach from the weapon, and could thus attack foes either 5 feet or 10 feet distant (as normal for a Large creature wielding a non-reach weapon). A human (Medium) wielding a Large or larger reach weapon could attack a creature 10 feet away (but no further), and could not use the weapon to attack a creature 5 feet away (as normal for a Medium creature wielding a reach weapon). A human wielding a Small reach weapon would gain no reach from the weapon. The Player’s Handbook isn’t as clear on this as it could be, although an example of reach in action on page 113 in the Player’s Handbook provides pretty strong support: “A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away . . .” [italics added]. While this reference doesn’t mention the ability to wield a reach weapon larger than the appropriate size, allowing such a weapon to grant reach to its wielder is a reasonable extension of the spirit and intent of the rule.
fatal error 07-09-07, 04:29 PM	However, his reach with Enlarge will indeed be 20ft, because it will become 10ft base, doubled by reach.
tarkin 07-09-07, 05:06 PM	It should be noted that damage/reach d20 style are treated exactly opposite to the real world with regards to weapon size. That is: In the real world, getting a bigger muscle powered weapon does NOT increase your damage, but does increase your reach. In d20 game rules getting a bigger muscle powered weapon increases damage but does not increase your reach.
unusualsuspect 07-09-07, 06:18 PM	RAW, it seems that ANY inappropriately sized weapon removes the benefits of having reach... this means, highly counterintuitively, that a medium creature wielding a large longspear is going to have a reach of 5 ft. Given the FAQ (and basic common sense), it would be reasonable to allow reach with a weapon inappropriately sized IF it's sized too large.
DM-Scott 07-10-07, 02:52 AM	Here's an odd question that while I know it's not rules-ok, I was wondering. Is it just me, or does anyone else find the fact that a human using a halfling sized longspear lacks the usual 10ft reach a bit odd? I mean, a halfling is smaller than a human, and with a smaller longspear obtains the same REACH as a human wielding a human sized longspear. I haven't house ruled a change in my games for it or anything. But I do wonder if other people find it odd.
RavenDrake 07-10-07, 04:52 AM	I've said in my games that using a larger than your size reach weapon still grants you reach(that's reach according to your size). Now, I've also houseruled that if you use a weapon no more than one size smaller with reach in exactly the same manner as you would for a weapon of your size, that it still grants reach(for example, using a small longspear two-handed as a medium character). Using it in one hand means that, for the sake of balance, you would have to grip it in such a way that you no longer have enough viable length of weapon to gain the benefit of reach(or at least that's my explaination).
tarkin 07-10-07, 10:45 AM	Here's an odd question that while I know it's not rules-ok, I was wondering. Is it just me, or does anyone else find the fact that a human using a halfling sized longspear lacks the usual 10ft reach a bit odd? I mean, a halfling is smaller than a human, and with a smaller longspear obtains the same REACH as a human wielding a human sized longspear. I haven't house ruled a change in my games for it or anything. But I do wonder if other people find it odd. The odd thing is that HALFLINGS get reach. They should not get reach. It is enough that they have normal 5ft reach, they are smaller than humans and should not get reach witha reach weapon. RavenDrake, you are trying for realism. Question - are you just making a power grab? If you REALLY want realism than admit that using a bigger weapon does NOT increase your damage. Damage is caused by the energy applied. The energy comes from my muscles. Any one that has used a real sword will tell you that if you double the weight, you half the speed that you can use the weapon. End result is if your muscles are the same size, then as long as youre weapon is at least 6 inches long, greater size will NOT increase the damage done. But it will let you attack your enemey before they can hit you (I.e. - more reach)
Leilond 07-10-07, 11:27 AM	The odd thing is that HALFLINGS get reach. They should not get reach. It is enough that they have normal 5ft reach, they are smaller than humans and should not get reach witha reach weapon. RavenDrake, you are trying for realism. Question - are you just making a power grab? If you REALLY want realism than admit that using a bigger weapon does NOT increase your damage. Damage is caused by the energy applied. The energy comes from my muscles. Any one that has used a real sword will tell you that if you double the weight, you half the speed that you can use the weapon. End result is if your muscles are the same size, then as long as youre weapon is at least 6 inches long, greater size will NOT increase the damage done. But it will let you attack your enemey before they can hit you (I.e. - more reach) Well... I'm sorry, but the damage come from the weapon weight and not only by your muscle. Energy is "E = mv^2" and "m" is the weight of the object All the "heavy weapon" mechanincs are based on "using the weight of the weapon", so the logic issue work The things that sounds funny is "you want logic and play D&D"? I will be more concearned about balance
Someone 07-10-07, 12:46 PM	There is a point at which you can't swing any faster, no matter how much lighter your weapon. If you are already at the upper limit on how fast you can swing, doubling the weight shouldn't necessarily halve the speed. Also, I assume by "a bigger (heavier) weapon increases your reach" you mean by inches, not by feet. A D&D reach weapon is an example of a specially designed weapon for more distant attacks, and isn't simply a heavier weapon. And I would say that increased length translates into leverage, so you can do more damage.
RavenDrake 07-11-07, 04:58 AM	I'm not trying for "realism". Otherwise I would gut the combat system, and start from scratch with a system more conducive to reality. And, quite frankly, I fail to see how this is a "power grab". It's simply a houserule for a situation that came up in a game of mine: Fighting kobolds with longspears, the fighter grabbed one of the fallen kobold's weapons and asked if he held the weapon like a kobold, towhit as a two-handed weapon rather than a one handed weapon, if he could keep the reach component. I agreed; he still retained the improper size penalty to attacks and the weapon's reduced damage, but he got reach which he used to keep him out of harm's way.