A fighter is probably the easiest PC to run "on autopilot" once its feats are selected.
Knight Feat Build
OP, as the DM, you can tell us what sources you're allowing/using, and that an help us focus a bit more.
ImperatorK
First Post
Except you did. Inhuman Reach makes your limbs longer. Deformity [Tall] also makes your limbs longer (by making you taller). Add that to the length of the weapon.
How exactly does a 6-8 ft. human reach 10-15 ft.?
No. I'm stating RAW. By RAW a reach weapon doubles your reach. and you're saying "human", forgeting that it's not a normal human. It's a deformed tall human with inhumanly long arms.
Except it is, because you're changing rules. That's what houseruling means. And there are no contradictions, simply because you're leaving out important details (explained above).
Yes. My interpretation is based on RAW. Your interpretation is based on... what exactly?
Deformity [Tall] and Inhuman Reach at least have fluff justification. What about feats or abilities that don't have that? Lunging Strike for example?
The Commandments are by caelic.
You could argue that "natural reach" means base reach from your race and doesn't include things like feats or abilities. And I wouldn't say that you're wrong, because it is possible that that's how it works. But nowhere is it specified what exactly does "natural reach" mean, so I'm going to interpret and rule it my way.
Although... There is this:
By that rule my 15 ft. reach is natural, because I have it from my physical nature (tall and inhumanly long limbs).
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying you have to play like that because it's RAW. I'm houseruling my games all the time. I'm just stating how the rules work. Do with that what you want.
If I had to show you a human with Deformity [Tall] and Inhuman Reach, it would definitely be that guy (although his arms should really be much longer than that, but whatever). There's even a page that shows his reach.
Last edited:
Herzog
Adventurer
Although I should know better, I want to chime in anyway.....
Are you saying that:
A (medium) creature with 5' reach using a (small) reach weapon doubles it's reach to 10'.
A (medium) creature with 5' reach using a (medium) reach weapon doubles it's reach to 10'.
A (medium) creature with 5' reach using a (large) reach weapon doubles it's reach to 10'.
A (medium) creature with 5' reach using a (huge) reach weapon doubles it's reach to 10'.
Even though:
the small reach weapon is too small to reach the additional 5' implied.
the large reach weapon is large enough to reach 15'
the huge reach weapon is large enough to reach 20'
?
Are you saying that:
A (medium) creature with 5' reach using a (small) reach weapon doubles it's reach to 10'.
A (medium) creature with 5' reach using a (medium) reach weapon doubles it's reach to 10'.
A (medium) creature with 5' reach using a (large) reach weapon doubles it's reach to 10'.
A (medium) creature with 5' reach using a (huge) reach weapon doubles it's reach to 10'.
Even though:
the small reach weapon is too small to reach the additional 5' implied.
the large reach weapon is large enough to reach 15'
the huge reach weapon is large enough to reach 20'
?
ImperatorK
First Post
That are the rules. I didn't make them.
Please, show me a rule that says a weapon has/doesn't have reach based on it's length. Show me a rule that says a smaller reach weapon losses it's reach property, or a bigger weapon gains the reach property. I'll wait.
Funny how upthread someone suggested using a small reach weapon to have reach and wield it in one hand and no one protested to that, but when I'm just stating RAW, it's so opposed.
Please, show me a rule that says a weapon has/doesn't have reach based on it's length. Show me a rule that says a smaller reach weapon losses it's reach property, or a bigger weapon gains the reach property. I'll wait.
Funny how upthread someone suggested using a small reach weapon to have reach and wield it in one hand and no one protested to that, but when I'm just stating RAW, it's so opposed.
Last edited:
Herzog
Adventurer
The only relevant piece of rules information provided:
Although the rules regarding reach weapons do not specify whether the weapon needs to be appropriately sized, they DO mention the above example which explicitly refers to an appropriately sized reach weapon. (There is no reason to mention the weapon is appropriately sized if this doesn't have an impact on the amount of reach you gain)
You could:
a. ignore weapon size (as you have done) because the reference to weapon size is only in the example, and not in the rule itself.
b. ignore weapon sizes for anything but Large creatures because the example also specifically refers to a Large creature.
c. take the example as an insight into the intent of the rules it accompanies, and only double reach when the weapon is appropriately sized for the wielder.
I opt for c.
Of course, there are NO rules for reach and inappropriately sized weapons, nor are there rules for reach when the wielder somehow has gained reach inappropriate for its size (abovementioned deformity etc.) and is using a reach weapon, so anything in that area is, by definition, house rule territory.
Whether you fall back on the generic doubling rules or try to incorporate the weapons size (length) into the exact threatened area is, of course, up to you.
was dismissed as being irrelevant?
Although the rules regarding reach weapons do not specify whether the weapon needs to be appropriately sized, they DO mention the above example which explicitly refers to an appropriately sized reach weapon. (There is no reason to mention the weapon is appropriately sized if this doesn't have an impact on the amount of reach you gain)
You could:
a. ignore weapon size (as you have done) because the reference to weapon size is only in the example, and not in the rule itself.
b. ignore weapon sizes for anything but Large creatures because the example also specifically refers to a Large creature.
c. take the example as an insight into the intent of the rules it accompanies, and only double reach when the weapon is appropriately sized for the wielder.
I opt for c.
Of course, there are NO rules for reach and inappropriately sized weapons, nor are there rules for reach when the wielder somehow has gained reach inappropriate for its size (abovementioned deformity etc.) and is using a reach weapon, so anything in that area is, by definition, house rule territory.
Whether you fall back on the generic doubling rules or try to incorporate the weapons size (length) into the exact threatened area is, of course, up to you.
Let's suppose we take the rules indeed literally. I'm not going in depth about Mystic Theurge not providing new spells per level but...
PHB p. 150:
"Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can't strike at their natural reach or less."
Supposing that our dear friend, the squid knight, remains medium-sized, RAWATL (Rules As Written And Taken Literally) would not double his natural reach in any case.
I was already ready to contact Wizards regarding the matter but though I'd at least find the page we're talking about before that.
ImperatorK
First Post
It's an example. If it somehow was rules related, they would specify what exactly happens if the weapon isn't approprately sized. But they don't. Thus it's irrelevant or a situation where the DM has to houserule. Personally I would houserule that smaller weapons loose reach and bigger two-handed weapons gain reach.
@ VariSami
Sorry, but on page 150 there's rules for spells in my PHB. I found it in the SRD. What exactly does this sentence prove?
Once again: that are the rules. I didn't write them. It's not my fault they're sometimes nonsensical or not clear enough. Give me a break.
Last edited:
Wait, what? What edition are we even talking about? I'm referring to Player's Handbook 3.5, in which page 150 contains mostly combat modifiers and a huge picture that depicts creatures of all sizes from colossal to tiny.
That settles it. If you don't even have the actual rulebook to refer to, I'm done here.
Similar Threads
