Knight Feat Build

ImperatorK said:

Wow. Now there are exceptions. You're not consistent, man.

Click to expand...

The rules themselves are not consistent, and not everyone will agree on certain interpretations. Likewise, even if people can agree on what the rules say, it's quite possible that they also agree the RAW is entirely nonsensical and using them as such would make anyone look like a complete moron. The interpretation that a medium creature with innate 15 foot reach gets 30 foot reach, while potentially RAW, is absolutely absurd. Remember, the game cannot be played without judicious use of common sense (AKA house rules to some). This is a case of common sense because it's obvious the weapon is only big enough to grant an extra 5 feet of reach, and that the wielder's natural reach being different does not change that fact.

Likewise, there are no rules I've seen that specifically adjudicate what happens when a creature has a different reach from the standard based on its size. It is pretty much all implications such as a centaur only getting an additional 5 feet of reach because he only has a natural 5 foot reach to begin with. The fact that there don't seem to be any specific rules on the subject shows that it probably does need to be house ruled.

In short, there are times when the rules are RAWtarded and need to be changed for the game to work properly. One example is the lines where drowning puts a creature at 0 HP in the first round, regardless of HP, including negative HP. So you might have a Creature with Delay Death on it with negative infinity hit points, but dunk its head in some water and it immediately returns to exactly 0 HP. While the rules might allow this use, it is plainly broken and needs to be changed, if not by the company itself then by any reasonable DM or player.

I'll concede on what the rules say in one case: The Rules Compendium specifically say on page 151 that a creature using a reach weapon made for a creature of a smaller size category does not gain the weapon's reach. It's clear and concise. As with everything though, it is still up to those playing on whether to follow that to the letter, to change it a bit, or just toss the whole thing out.

A reason people not knowing of that rule would think a medium creature using a small reach weapon would get reach is that the small weapon grants the exact same reach as a medium version, thus the medium creature should get reach with it too.

Perhaps we can agree that the reach rules aren't sufficient enough to make a truly concrete argument either way about creatures with "abnormal reach" and that such a ruling needs to be left to participants in each game?

The interpretation that a medium creature with innate 15 foot reach gets 30 foot reach, while potentially RAW, is absolutely absurd.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it isn't.

The fact that there don't seem to be any specific rules on the subject shows that it does need to be house ruled.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it doesn't.

In short, there are times when the rules are RAWtarded and need to be changed for the game to work properly.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

I'll concede on what the rules say in one case: The Rules Compendium specifically say on page 151 that a creature using a reach weapon made for a creature of a smaller size category does not gain the weapon's reach.

Click to expand...

Oh. That's good to know.

Perhaps we can agree that the reach rules aren't sufficient enough to make a truly concrete argument either way about creatures with "abnormal reach" and that such a ruling needs to be left to participants in each game?

Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

ImperatorK said:

Nope, it does not. The Table you're quoting says "(Creature) Height & Length", not "Weapon Length".

Click to expand...

...which is where the other rule sent us to look. Where else is "size class" determined? What else could it possibly mean if a weapon is "size class M"?

Wow. Now there are exceptions. You're not consistent, man.

Click to expand...

No exception. The rules do not say that all 2-handed weapons grant Reach. Only weapons with Reach grant Reach.

Yes, I know you can't do that. Assume that I'm not an idiot. Assume also that I meant a medium creature does indeed have one of those. Geez.

Click to expand...

In a discussion such as this, I make no such assumption. Especially since we did not at any point discuss the creatue having both Monkey Grip and the Vile & Aberrant feats or magic, and as a human, he cannot have Powerful build.

Yes, I remember. What of it?

Click to expand...

It's the same example as the one you were asking about, only with a more extreme size differential between wielder and weapon.

ImperatorK said:

I didn't say it isn't.


I didn't say it doesn't.


I don't disagree.


Oh. That's good to know.


I don't disagree.

Click to expand...

The general tone of your posts seems to be that you feel "RAW is law" so to speak. I believe part of the problem here is that you're discussing what the rules are and aren't quite using language that says "I have carefully considered those arguments presented and I disagree with them because of X, Y, and Z." Further, part of the discussion is also about applying the rules, not just about what the rules are. As you mentioned, you don't disagree with my statement "The interpretation that a medium creature with innate 15 foot reach gets 30 foot reach, while potentially RAW, is absolutely absurd" which shows you're aware of the difference between what the rules are and how they should be applied.

Might I recommend using language that says while you feel the RAW is X, actually applying the rules like that might not go over well? Discussing what the rules are is great and all, but because we're also discussing applying them practically, going by strict RAW might not work.

I thought I'd be out of this already but no...

Thanks, Jack, for bringing up the Rules Compendium. It's so much easier to find things in there than in the PHB.

Let's go through this again... The way I see it, the problem is not whether or not the weapon is of some size but what counts as a "natural reach".

ImperatorK argues that modifiers added by Feats count as an improvement in "natural reach". The rest of us are basically arguing that it's based on the creature in question - which results in a standard addition to reach in most cases because it determines the size of the weapon.

As it happens to be, I have both Heroes of Horror and Lord of Madness right beside me since I happen to enjoy mutilating characters.

Deformity (Tall) states to add 5ft. to your reach. ("... grant you an additional 5ft. to your reach.") Now then. Is this an addition to "natural reach"? I'd say not. It is simply an addition that affects the same layer as a reach weapon. That is: Natural Reach 5ft. + [nat. reach = 5ft.] (reach weapon) +5ft. (Deformity) = 15ft..

Inhuman Reach is... interestingly worded. "You gain an additional 5ft. of reach. For most Small and Medium creatures this benefit increases natural reach to 10 feet." In this scenario it would indeed be doubled by a reach weapon when only these rules apply. So the reach would be Natural Reach (5ft.+5ft. (Inhuman Reach)) + [nat. reach = 10ft.) =20ft..

Now then... Does the addition from Deformity (Tall) also count as an addition to Natural Reach, just like Inhuman Reach does? This is completely up to interpretation.

However... I'd say that the rules about weapon length need be considered. It's just like the First Commandment states: not everything needs to be stated by the rules. If you are using a weapon, the length of which is less than what it adds to your reach, it is likely that those making the rules did not even consider someone arguing that to increase your reach beyond what the weapon adds.

Basically, this would mean that a Choker that picks up a spear someone's Halfling used just a moment ago would reach 5ft. farther with it than the Halfling just did. It's the same spear. For the sake of roleplaying (you know, the first two letters in RPG) it would make no sense in-game for this to happen. Of course the rules of D&D have their guirks but at least most of them can be made to make sense in-universe. This couldn't, in any meaningful way.

So, I concede that the actual wording of at least one of the feats is explicitly stating that it increases natural reach, which is in turn doubled by a reach weapon. The size of the weapon might not have any explicitly stated rules regarding its reach but it would seem like something commanded by any amount of common sense. If common sense doesn't apply in someone's game, then it's their choice. Oh, and in this case it's up to the OP in his games since he's the DM.

Besides... Those are sub-optimal ways anyway since the tank seems starved for feats and there are better ways to increase one's reach. Like actually going up in sizes (even temporarily).

What else could it possibly mean if a weapon is "size class M"?

Click to expand...

That it's intended for a creature of that size category. If a creature uses a weapon not intended for it's size it gains penalties to attack.

No exception. The rules do not say that all 2-handed weapons grant Reach. Only weapons with Reach grant Reach.

Click to expand...

A Large two-handed weapon without reach is as long if not longer than a Medium weapon with reach. Why doesn't it have reach? By your logic it should have it.

In a discussion such as this, I make no such assumption. Especially since we did not at any point discuss the creatue having both Monkey Grip and the Vile & Aberrant feats or magic, and as a human, he cannot have Powerful build.

Click to expand...

I'm starting to get tired by this...
Assume a hypotetical Medium creature that can indeed use a Large weapon. Now stop avoid the question.

It's the same example as the one you were asking about, only with a more extreme size differential between wielder and weapon.

Click to expand...

And? By RAW it has a reach of 0 feet. What's your point?

Might I recommend using language that says while you feel the RAW is X, actually applying the rules like that might not go over well?

Click to expand...

What part of "I think RAW is sometimes nonsensical" or "I'm houseruling all the time in my games" is unclear to you? Because you know, I have posted that a few times. Just as I mentioned multiple times that I'm only stating RAW. People were arguing RAW, so I was arguing right back at them. Nowhere did I say "You can't houserule, RAW is tha Bible!"

ImperatorK said:

That it's intended for a creature of that size category.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect by RAW.

A 2 handed weapon intended for use by a M creature is size class M. By your reading, a light or one handed weapon would ALSO be size class M, but they are not.

"...a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder (or size Tiny for a size M wielder) a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder (or size S for a M sized wielder)..."

(italicized parentheticals mine)

A Large two-handed weapon without reach is as long if not longer than a Medium weapon with reach. Why doesn't it have reach? By your logic it should have it.

Click to expand...

Because the designers screwed up weapon sizing rules by trying to be abstract instead of linking reach simply to weapon length.

(FWIW, I contacted the Sage about this years ago, and his thought was RAI, give the wielder 5' of reach.)

Assume a hypotetical Medium creature that can indeed use a Large weapon. Now stop avoid the question.

Click to expand...

I haven't avoided it, I answered it upthread.

To clarify, since the methods that allow a creature to wield an oversized weapon state that the "effort to do so does not change"- meaning one handed weapons are still one handed, 2 handed weapons remain 2 handed- they should get the benefits of the reach as well. This does not mean that the reach would just "double"- such as for an appropriately sized weapon- but rather that they would get at least an additional +5' beyond that "doubling", depending on the weapon.

And? By RAW it has a reach of 0 feet. What's your point?

Click to expand...

A Gargantuan weapon (32'-64' in length) probably takes up more than 1 square of space along any axis of its 3 dimensions. To say that, when wielded by a tiny creature (with magical assistance) it cannot strike outside of a square is a nonsensical result.

ImperatorK said:

What part of "I think RAW is sometimes nonsensical" or "I'm houseruling all the time in my games" is unclear to you? Because you know, I have posted that a few times. Just as I mentioned multiple times that I'm only stating RAW. People were arguing RAW, so I was arguing right back at them. Nowhere did I say "You can't houserule, RAW is tha Bible!"

Click to expand...

Your tone heavily suggests otherwise.

I can clearly read that you wrote "I think RAW is sometimes nonsensical," among other things, which leaves me wondering why you seem to have been so fervent in trying to prove your interpretation of RAW as correct. And then my wonder dissipates because I realize this entire thing is silly bickering and that the answer to my wonder probably doesn't mean much in the first place.

Here's where I take my leave: Arguing about nonsensical rules is nonsensical, thus I'm not going to do it anymore. The thread has been derailed too much as is.


As for the actual topic at hand... Back on page 5 I see Xanti pretty much said the build was done. If you're still looking at this thread, Xanti, is there anything else we can do for you, assuming it doesn't degenerate into questionable RAW debates?

That is incorrect by RAW.

A 2 handed weapon intended for use by a M creature is size class M. By your reading, a light or one handed weapon would ALSO be size class M, but they are not.

Click to expand...

Eh, whatever. So they used creature sizes for a rough guideline on weapon sizes. So what? It still doesn't have any impact on actual rules. Just as a 4 ft. human (or below 4 ft. gnome) has the exact same reach as a 6 ft. human, so does a 6 ft. greatsword has the same reach as a 12 ft. greatsword if you're not big enough.

Because the designers screwed up weapon sizing rules by trying to be abstract instead of linking reach simply to weapon length.

Click to expand...

So you admit that those are actually RAW?

To say that, when wielded by a tiny creature (with magical assistance) it cannot strike outside of a square is a nonsensical result.

Click to expand...

Please, I beg of you, quote me saying that it isn't. Because you're apparently mistaking my quoting and explaining RAW for my opinion on what is reasonable and realistic. I'm saying "Here, this is RAW", you're talking about realism and your houserules and state them as RAW. I'm correcting you. Nothing more. Nothing else.

Your tone heavily suggests otherwise.

Click to expand...

Apparently my TONE is a bigger indication of what I'm doing than my ACTUAL WORDS, so I assume it doesn't matter what I say, you're just going to ignore it, because my tone "suggests otherwise". Whatever.

I can clearly read that you wrote "I think RAW is sometimes nonsensical," among other things, which leaves me wondering why you seem to have been so fervent in trying to prove your interpretation of RAW as correct.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing what is correct. I'm explaining what is RAW. What you do with RAW is your business, I'm just saying what is what. Especially that some people are mistaking houserules for RAW. I was just correcting them.

ImperatorK said:

I'm not arguing what is correct. I'm explaining what is RAW. What you do with RAW is your business, I'm just saying what is what. Especially that some people are mistaking houserules for RAW. I was just correcting them.

Click to expand...

Here's a different wording: The argument is about what is RAW in the first place. Quoting the rules is one thing but interpreting and explaining their meaning is another, and it is the interpretation of the meaning of the rules that is what RAW is. In explaining the rules, you are also interpreting them, which means you are forming an opinion about what the rules mean in the first place. Someone else, using the same rules, provided a different explanation/interpretation/opinion about them that has as much potential to be right or wrong as yours was. If it didn't have that potential, do you think the argument could go on for half a dozen pages? Not likely. And yet you are saying that your interpretation is the correct one. As mentioned in Dandu's post on page 5:

The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what RAW is: The rules as interpreted by someone. Again, in saying that "I'm stating that this is RAW" you are saying that it is your interpretation and have tried to shoot down a different interpretation because to you it isn't correct, thus yours must be.

The only true fact in this is the exact wording of what the rules say. If the rules say "X creature is Medium" then those are the rules. What is an interpretation of those rules is saying that the same creature is not Large. If you want to say what the exact rules are, quote them exactly, saying nothing else, and be done with it. Let other people interpret it for themselves.