A weapon's Reach? [Archive] - Wizards Community

A weapon's Reach? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Nagarhi
09-01-04, 01:29 AM Query ?

If my goliath fighter is wielding a huge weapon, what reach does he have?
As a goliath, he has the powerful build racial ability, which means whilst he is of medium size he can wield weapons one size larger. If a large weapon such as a greatsword or fullblade is upgraded one size, then it becomes huge. Does this increase his normal reach of 5 ft for being a medium creature ?

I can't find any documentation on this subject. Any advice would be appreciated...:)
sparkster4242
09-01-04, 03:16 AM greatswords and fullblades are not reach weapons, so his reach with those weapons is the same as with his fists.

the weapon-sizing rules arent perfect; a halfling monk wielding his bare hands has the same reach as a human wielding an 8-foot sword :p
tarkin
09-01-04, 11:55 AM 1) Large Creatures (tall) have 10ft reach. With non-reach weapons, that will ALWAYS be your reach.

2) With a Large Reach weapon, that gets doubled. (Spiked Chain grants you reach 0-20 ft, LongSpear grants you reach of 11-20 ft.

3) There are no official 3.5 rules for using reach weapons of the wrong size. Here is what I do when a medium or larger creature uses a reach weapon that is one size bigger than they should normally use:

Reach weapon doubles there reach + an additional 5 ft.

If you use this house urle, than a Large creature using a Huge Spiked CHain gets reach 0-25 ft, a Long spear gets 11-25 ft.
Tonus
09-01-04, 12:51 PM By the rules, "most reach double the wielder’s natural reach" so there is nothing to suggest that there should be an advantage granted to using an in-appropriately sized weapon.

Reach is a powerful ability, and granting extended reach to using a larger than normal weapon runs the risk of becoming overpowering. Why would anyone use a standard weapon in that case?

While "logically" you might think that a larger than normal weapon should bestow larger than normal reach, you can just as easily imagine that you need to choke up on the oversized weapon to keep it under control. For the sake of game balance, I would stick with the "double natural reach" rule, even with oversized weapons.
mostholy2
09-01-04, 02:48 PM I was wondering if this also applies in the reverse case? A hobbit using a small size reach weapon still retains it's reach weapon threat range, even though it is a small size weapon? Is this also true for tiny weapons? Thanks for your help.
Tonus
09-01-04, 09:03 PM I was wondering if this also applies in the reverse case? A hobbit using a small size reach weapon still retains it's reach weapon threat range, even though it is a small size weapon? Is this also true for tiny weapons? Thanks for your help.

The problem with retaining reach while using a smaller weapon is that you then have the prospect of creatures wielding reach weapons (which were designed as two-handed weapons) in one hand. Even though the weapon is smaller (and presumably thinner and lighter) they are just as long and arguably just as unwieldy. So my inclination is to say no. But this is not really addressed in the rules so if your silliness threshold is higher than mine and you don't mind the idea of someone dual-wielding small spiked chains, for instance, then have fun.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nagarhi 09-01-04, 01:29 AM	Query ? If my goliath fighter is wielding a huge weapon, what reach does he have? As a goliath, he has the powerful build racial ability, which means whilst he is of medium size he can wield weapons one size larger. If a large weapon such as a greatsword or fullblade is upgraded one size, then it becomes huge. Does this increase his normal reach of 5 ft for being a medium creature ? I can't find any documentation on this subject. Any advice would be appreciated...:)
sparkster4242 09-01-04, 03:16 AM	greatswords and fullblades are not reach weapons, so his reach with those weapons is the same as with his fists. the weapon-sizing rules arent perfect; a halfling monk wielding his bare hands has the same reach as a human wielding an 8-foot sword :p
tarkin 09-01-04, 11:55 AM	1) Large Creatures (tall) have 10ft reach. With non-reach weapons, that will ALWAYS be your reach. 2) With a Large Reach weapon, that gets doubled. (Spiked Chain grants you reach 0-20 ft, LongSpear grants you reach of 11-20 ft. 3) There are no official 3.5 rules for using reach weapons of the wrong size. Here is what I do when a medium or larger creature uses a reach weapon that is one size bigger than they should normally use: Reach weapon doubles there reach + an additional 5 ft. If you use this house urle, than a Large creature using a Huge Spiked CHain gets reach 0-25 ft, a Long spear gets 11-25 ft.
Tonus 09-01-04, 12:51 PM	By the rules, "most reach double the wielder’s natural reach" so there is nothing to suggest that there should be an advantage granted to using an in-appropriately sized weapon. Reach is a powerful ability, and granting extended reach to using a larger than normal weapon runs the risk of becoming overpowering. Why would anyone use a standard weapon in that case? While "logically" you might think that a larger than normal weapon should bestow larger than normal reach, you can just as easily imagine that you need to choke up on the oversized weapon to keep it under control. For the sake of game balance, I would stick with the "double natural reach" rule, even with oversized weapons.
mostholy2 09-01-04, 02:48 PM	I was wondering if this also applies in the reverse case? A hobbit using a small size reach weapon still retains it's reach weapon threat range, even though it is a small size weapon? Is this also true for tiny weapons? Thanks for your help.
Tonus 09-01-04, 09:03 PM	I was wondering if this also applies in the reverse case? A hobbit using a small size reach weapon still retains it's reach weapon threat range, even though it is a small size weapon? Is this also true for tiny weapons? Thanks for your help. The problem with retaining reach while using a smaller weapon is that you then have the prospect of creatures wielding reach weapons (which were designed as two-handed weapons) in one hand. Even though the weapon is smaller (and presumably thinner and lighter) they are just as long and arguably just as unwieldy. So my inclination is to say no. But this is not really addressed in the rules so if your silliness threshold is higher than mine and you don't mind the idea of someone dual-wielding small spiked chains, for instance, then have fun.