reach weapon and CA

[sammy]

I was wondering if I have a reach weapon, say a great spear, and I am in reach of an enemy, and an ally of mine is directly across from my reach, is that combat advantage?

(me)___(enemy)(ally)

The ___ is my weapons reach.

Thanks in advance to all who reply.

Sammy

 

[abyssaldeath]

I was wondering if I have a reach weapon, say a great spear, and I am in reach of an enemy, and an ally of mine is directly across from my reach, is that combat advantage?

(me)___(enemy)(ally)

The ___ is my weapons reach.

Thanks in advance to all who reply.

Sammy

No, you must be adjacent to flank.

 

[Nichwee]

Not by the rules as far as I can see.
Assuming you mean CA via flanking, the rules on Page 285 PHB state you and your ally mst both be adjacent to the creature to flank (and nothing I could find removes this requirement for reach)

TBH I woul dallow it like it was in 3.5 (where you count as attacking from the square adjacent to the enemy you are reaching thru) but the rules don't seem to allow it - unless I missed an errata.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The difference in 3.5 was that you could still threaten. The corrolary then would be to only allow the flanking if you had threatening reach, which is hard to get I think.

 

[CovertOps]

The difference in 3.5 was that you could still threaten. The corrolary then would be to only allow the flanking if you had threatening reach, which is hard to get I think.

QFT. This is the exact issue at hand. I don't think there is any way to get threatening reach for PC's, but I could be wrong. Some larger monsters get it as part of their write up which falls under specific beats general, but by and large this is not even common among monsters.

 

[abyssaldeath]

QFT. This is the exact issue at hand. I don't think there is any way to get threatening reach for PC's, but I could be wrong. Some larger monsters get it as part of their write up which falls under specific beats general, but by and large this is not even common among monsters.

The Goliath PP has a Utility power that gives you threatening reach till the end of your next turn. There is a Warden PP that has a Daily that gives you threatening reach.

 

[Neuroglyph]

The difference in 3.5 was that you could still threaten. The corrolary then would be to only allow the flanking if you had threatening reach, which is hard to get I think.

The PHB (p 217) is pretty clear about the fact that reach weapons do not allow for either flanking or attacks of opportunity, but that you have to be adjacent to do that.

Although, if anyone has played with the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) and watched a mass melee combat, the guys with the polearm and longspears are WAY dangerous at the end of their reach and not very threatening up close.

That said, it's certainly open to house rules at your game if the logic of it bothers you - I can see a good argument for both.

 

[DracoSuave]

The PHB (p 217) is pretty clear about the fact that reach weapons do not allow for either flanking or attacks of opportunity, but that you have to be adjacent to do that.

This is correct.

Although, if anyone has played with the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) and watched a mass melee combat, the guys with the polearm and longspears are WAY dangerous at the end of their reach and not very threatening up close.

D&D isn't based upon SCA-style fighting, however. It's based upon superheroic fighting as per power-fantasy sword-and-sorcery novels. If they release 'Tabards and Tablero' however, I'd expect it to be based on SCA fighting. When flying fireball chucking superheroes start to join the SCA, then we can discuss phalanx tactics applying in D&D.

Oh, and also Polearm Gambit yo. Polearm Gambit.

The emphasis shouldn't be on what is 'real' but on what is 'awesome.'

That said, it's certainly open to house rules at your game if the logic of it bothers you - I can see a good argument for both.

 

[Zinovia]

I house-ruled to allow reach weapons to provide flank at their reach. However, to prevent the scenario of an enemy never being able to close with a reach weapon user without provoking an opportunity attack, I do not allow OA's at reach. Realistically you should be able to make an OA against someone at reach, but that's a case where I think realism needs to take second place to rules balance.

FWIW my entire group is made up of former SCA members. While we're not trying to play a detailed simulationist game, there have been a couple rules changed to preserve our own sense of verisimilitude. Double weapons = silly.

 

[DracoSuave]

I house-ruled to allow reach weapons to provide flank at their reach. However, to prevent the scenario of an enemy never being able to close with a reach weapon user without provoking an opportunity attack, I do not allow OA's at reach. Realistically you should be able to make an OA against someone at reach, but that's a case where I think realism needs to take second place to rules balance.

A skilled polearm user could do this.

A skilled polearm user has the Polearm Gamble feat, to reflect his ability to do this.

FWIW my entire group is made up of former SCA members. While we're not trying to play a detailed simulationist game, there have been a couple rules changed to preserve our own sense of verisimilitude. Double weapons = silly.

History disagrees.