# Range for increased sized reach weapons



## edwee (Jan 22, 2011)

Im currently trying to determine the range for a Large sized Lance and was unable to find any rules determining Large weapons ranges, normal range for a reach weapon is 10 ft, if it were a large weapon would it be 15 feet or what?(assuming a medium sized creature was wielding it with Monkey Palms)


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jan 22, 2011)

3.5 PHB, page 113.

A medium-sized creature wielding a Large reach weapon gains no additional reach (that is, it gets no more benefit than it would from a Medium-sized reach weapon). A Large creature wielding a Large reach weapon has its natural reach doubled.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 23, 2011)

_*Reach Weapons*
Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, 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 or her. 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. _

I'd advise a look at the precedence of the core rules centaur for fine example of how this works. The centaur, a large creature, wields the same weapons as ogres and giants, yet the centaur only has 5’ reach with non reach weapons, 10' with reach weapons. If a large creature with the same reach as a medium creature does not gain additional reach wielding the weapons of an ogre, I think there is little room to make claims a medium creature would.

_*Attack: * 	Longsword +7 melee (2d6+6/19-20) or composite longbow (+4 Str bonus) +5 ranged (2d6+4/×3)
*Space/Reach:* 	10 ft./5 ft._

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-le...ation-reach-weapons-large-huge-creatures.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-le...enlarge-person-reach-weapons.html#post3188585

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/188958-reach.html


----------



## Herzog (Jan 23, 2011)

So, since reach weapons double the creatures' reach, a (medium) warshaper (reach 5) with Morphic reach (+5) and a reach weapon would have 20' reach?


----------



## HoboGod (Sep 14, 2011)

A bit of thread necromancy in this post, but justifiably so as this is enworld's first search result on google for the topic of different sized reach weapons.

I'd like to say that I disagree with consensus based on how reach weapons are described in Savage Species.


			
				Savage Species page 42 said:
			
		

> *Size and Reach:* For each size increase of a reach weapon, increase its reach by 5 ft. A Huge guisarme has a reach of 15 feet (insead of 10 feet for the Large Version), for instance, while a Gargantuan guisarme has a reach of 20 feet. . . . Tiny creatures using small reach weapons can fight in melee as if they had 5 feet of reach, meaning they do not have to enter an opponent's area to attack.




Furthermore, this does not disagree with the PHB. A creature using an appropriately sized weapon doubles it's reach. However, the PHB does not explicitely talk about the reach of inapropriately sized weapons, whereas Savage Species does.

I'll admit Savage Species is a few months short of being called a 3.5 rulebook, but saying a reach weapon only doubles your reach regardless of the weapon's size is just silly. Poles and chains don't shorten because the wielder has shorter arms.

EDIT: Also, by core, Centaurs don't use any reach weapons. If they did, I'd say they would probably have a 15ft reach.


----------



## irdeggman (Sep 14, 2011)

HoboGod said:


> A bit of thread necromancy in this post, but justifiably so as this is enworld's first search result on google for the topic of different sized reach weapons.
> 
> I'd like to say that I disagree with consensus based on how reach weapons are described in Savage Species.
> 
> ...




Rules Compendium pg 116 (last 3.5 book published and by self-definition the last and most up to date source for rules)

"Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can attack at up to double their natural reach, but they can't attack within their natural reach or less."

pg 151

"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."


----------



## Nezkrul (Sep 14, 2011)

HoboGod said:


> I'll admit Savage Species is a few months short of being called a 3.5 rulebook, but saying a reach weapon only doubles your reach regardless of the weapon's size is just silly. Poles and chains don't shorten because the wielder has shorter arms.



savage species had too many broken things in it to be 3.5.

also, are you swinging your colossal longspear or is it swinging you?  you have to choke up on it, assuming you could even get your grip on the massive diameter of the spear, because your mass or leverage just ain't enough to use it... hence the printed rules that a reach weapon only doubles your reach if it is appropriately sized for you.


----------



## HoboGod (Sep 14, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> Rules Compendium pg 116 (last 3.5 book published and by self-definition the last and most up to date source for rules)
> 
> "Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can attack at up to double their natural reach, but they can't attack within their natural reach or less."




This is identical to the entry in the PHB in that it's not mentioning inappropriate sized weapons, it's speaking of a truism that exists for what generally happens when creatures use reach weapons. 




irdeggman said:


> pg 151
> 
> "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."




You've taken this quote out of context. They're talking about when modifying a weapon (such as Large one-handed weapon to Medium two-handed weapon) to be wielded by a creature of a different size category. They're not talking about when wielding the weapon normally as if you were that size category such as with monkey grip or strongarm bracers.



Nezkrul said:


> savage species had too many broken things in it to be 3.5.
> 
> also, are you swinging your colossal longspear or is it swinging you?  you have to choke up on it, assuming you could even get your grip on the massive diameter of the spear, because your mass or leverage just ain't enough to use it... hence the printed rules that a reach weapon only doubles your reach if it is appropriately sized for you.




Yes, the fact that Savage Species is not 3.5 is the counter-argument. I can't rebuke that. However, what would monkey grip and strongarm bracers give you if not the grip on on the massive diameter of your weapon?


----------



## Nezkrul (Sep 15, 2011)

HoboGod said:


> Yes, the fact that Savage Species is not 3.5 is the counter-argument. I can't rebuke that. However, what would monkey grip and strongarm bracers give you if not the grip on on the massive diameter of your weapon?



 For 1, neither allow a human to use a colossal sized weapon, let alone without penalty.  2, Monkey Grip is such a crappy feat compared to Power Attack.  3. Strong Arm Bracers nor Monkey Grip are core, so not really valid to use to argue about core rules.


----------



## HoboGod (Sep 15, 2011)

I never said they could use a colossal sized weapon. Your example uses a colossal weapon. The topic is about Large sized weapons. Personally, I thought your example was a humorous quip and were using it to generalize how Large weapons should be treated. As for this being a discussion of core rules (PHB, DMG, and MM only) to which monkey grip and strong arm bracers should not be mentioned, that's ridiculous. The original topic of this discussion is in regards to the reach of a medium creature with a Large lance using the monkey grip feat (the OP called it monkey palms, but I imagine that's just a typo).

As for Monkey Grip being a crappy feat. I agree. But are you gunna tell that to weeabo fluff gamers that want to have a sub-optimal character with an oversized sword that they should be using Power Attack instead?


----------



## Greenfield (Sep 15, 2011)

This is one of the reasons why reach weapons, and the Spiked Chain in particular, are considered cheesy.  Enlarge Person on a fighter with a weapon like that lets them control a 50 foot circle.  (10 foot base in the middle, plus 20 feet on either side).  That's a lot of battle field control granted with a single 1st level spell.


----------



## kitcik (Sep 15, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> This is one of the reasons why reach weapons, and the Spiked Chain in particular, are considered cheesy. Enlarge Person on a fighter with a weapon like that lets them control a 50 foot circle. (10 foot base in the middle, plus 20 feet on either side). That's a lot of battle field control granted with a single 1st level spell.




Is it the spiked chain (and, by extension) the melee character which is at fault, or is it Enlarge Person (and, by extension) the caster?

There's a reason they call it "Cheez Wiz" ...


----------



## Greenfield (Sep 15, 2011)

Wasn't placing blame, just making an observation.

If I had to "place blame", and I couldn't blame the authors of the rules, I'd have to chalk that one up to teamwork.  (Of course, the fighter could also be the caster, in which case we'd call that a conspiracy of one.)

I ran that combo and one DM got down on me for it.  I pointed out that to pull the full game took Exotic Weapon feat, Weapons Expertise, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, plus a level dip into Wiz or Sor for the _Enlarge_.  So yeah, it's a powerful setup, but you pay full price for it.

And, of course, it's a one-trick pony.  But when it works, it's one hell of a trick.


----------



## kitcik (Sep 15, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> And, of course, it's a one-trick pony. But when it works, it's one hell of a trick.


----------



## Wyvernhand (Sep 16, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> I ran that combo and one DM got down on me for it. I pointed out that to pull the full game took Exotic Weapon feat, Weapons Expertise, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, plus a level dip into Wiz or Sor for the _Enlarge_. So yeah, it's a powerful setup, but you pay full price for it.




Where would you rather he place his feats?  Skill Focus: Handle Animal?  Feats are supposed to make you better at stuff.  Thats why they exist.  Complaining that a character is better because they took feats is like complaining that a wizard is strong because most days he actually prepares spells instead of leaving the slots empty.

Getting big and controlling the battlefield is one of the most useful things a melee character can do.  Its one of the VERY few ways to "tank" in D&D.  Trip, Knockback, or Standstill anything that attempts to move past you to engage those folks you are supposed to be protecting.

Working as intended.

Also, HoboGod, the relevent text is "appropriate size".  The weapon is either approriately sized, or not.  If its appropriately sized, the character gains reach (and thus doubles their natural reach).   There are not "degrees of reach", just the presence or absense of it. If the weapon is NOT appropriately sized, they don't.  Bianary.  On, or off.  Period.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Sep 16, 2011)

Even though the information in Savage Species is technically rendered moot by that in later books, it is not an unreasonable to allow it (the size and reach weapons rules from Savage Species).

It is what I do when I run my games, and it works out just fine (though not for the people who are getting hit from far away.  They are sad).


----------



## HoboGod (Sep 16, 2011)

Wyvernhand said:


> Also, HoboGod, the relevent text is "appropriate size".  The weapon is either approriately sized, or not.  If its appropriately sized, the character gains reach (and thus doubles their natural reach).   There are not "degrees of reach", just the presence or absense of it. If the weapon is NOT appropriately sized, they don't.  Bianary.  On, or off.  Period.




If that's how you want to interpret the rules, that's fine. However, I don't agree with that. I'm not meaning to get people riled up, I'm just trying to show the other side of the coin. Savage Species illustrates the mechanics of different sized reach weapons. You can interpret that as a variant to the PHB or you can interpret it as the same but more detailed. I tend to believe the latter, but it never-the-less shows that a WotC book supports a system where the size of the weapon is relevant to it's reach.


----------



## Nezkrul (Sep 16, 2011)

HoboGod said:


> I tend to believe the latter, but it never-the-less shows that a WotC book supports a system where the size of the weapon is relevant to it's reach.



Savage Species is a 3.0 supplement, and as such, its rules were written using the 3.0 phb and 3.0 dmg.  That means it uses the weapon sizing rules for 3.0, not 3.5.  3.5 is completely different (IMO simplified) when dealing with the size of a weapon than 3.0 was.

in 3.0 a large longsword was flat out called a greatsword.  in 3.5, its just a long sword that is appropriately sized for a large character.  they corellated weapon size to size of wielder in 3.5.


----------

