New FAQ entry on mis-sized reach weapons

[Hypersmurf]

And the kusari-gama from the DMG. 10 gp, 1d4/1d6, crit x2, Weight 3 lbs, Slashing, light exotic weapon, reach and close weapon.

It's quite bizarre. In the 3E DMG, it was a Medium weapon (3.5 equivalent: one-handed) errata'd to a Large weapon (3.5 equivalent: two-handed). In the 3.5 DMG, it's light.

Weird.

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

Depends on what kind of players you have.
With reach and feats like double hit and great str + trip, things could get ugly, very ugly.

Sorry, still not seeing the problem. Double hit and great Strength and trip is not a problem without reach, but it becomes a problem when reach comes into the picture? What is the extra advantage provided by reach that makes it so much worse than normal?

 

[Iku Rex]

Reducing one step in damage die isn't that big of a penalty when weighed against reach considering all of the bonuses to damage outside the weapon damage roll...So you lose (up to) 2 points of damage by reducing to a small weapon vs. ability to use a shield, gain reach, and still get all the other damage bonuses.

Those don't balance very well on my scales.

You're forgetting the -2 penalty on attacks.

In addition a one-handed reach weapon wielder is vulnerable to special attacks like disarm and sunder, since his weapon will be smaller (one-handed) and easier to destroy (half hit points) than a regular two-handed one. Since he doesn't threaten the area right in front of him, an opponent can make such attacks with impunity once past the threatened area.

Also, he won't get the 1.5 Str bonus damage the two-handed wielder gets. Translate the -2 penalty to two-handed power attack damage, and the effective "damage penalty" can easily be -6 (or more, for strong/high-level characters with 18+ Str).

 

[Iku Rex]

Yes, they used a spear and shield, but that does not mean they were getting 'reach' from it.

No, the fact that they were using a spear doesn't mean that they were getting "reach" from it. The fact that they were using long spears (8-10 feet), unwieldy for close combat, for the purpose of out-reaching the enemy and allowing fighters to attack past comrades in front of them means that they were getting "reach".

(Wikipedia hoplite)

Plus using the spear one handed was effective... in a phalanx. So if you have 30 players that want to base characters on hoplites, it makes sense. But to assume that a single Hoplite, with a spear and a shield, would be effective, let alone at range.... is fallacious.

Why?

Sure, as I've already stated several times, it won't be an invincible super-warrior (quite the contrary, in some ways) but I can see why a player might want such a character for role-playing reasons (disbanded soldier) or in order to have a unique combat style.

Now, upon thinking about it; I don't have a problem making a 'light longspear' that gives range, but does less damage, and is a bit harder to control. (1d6, -2 to hit) It seems balanced. (and yes, it is the same as a 'small longspear'.) But that is because this is a game, and fun is cool; the Hoplites were not able to do this. [emphasis mine - IR]

Why not?

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

The Savage Species system had a good idea, that was phrased confusingly.

Translated, though, and updated for 3.5:

Stolen. Thank you for the sensible addition to my house rules.doc