Range for increased sized reach weapons

[Greenfield]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Wyvernhand]

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]

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]

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]

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.