D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Halfling with Reach, you like it?

[MeepoTheMighty]

For Tiny creatures to have reach (5' instead of 2½') is ok IMO, but for a 3' tall gnome to hit a creature about 10' away is just dumb. And remember (if I may somewhat quote myself), reach weapons are not wielded from one end (as are swords), but from a more center / last quarter of the weapon. How long is a small longspear in 3.5?

Well, it doesn't really say, but small weapons weigh half as much. Maybe it's the same length, but thinner, so a halfling can wield it easier. Maybe halflings dance around a bit more as they're fighting and are better at ducking in and out of an opponent's fighting space, effectively lengthening their reach.

Really though, it's not the halflings with reach you should be worrying about. Put a reach weapon in the hands of an ogre and watch him beat on things 20 feet away.

 

[Cybern]

Well, it doesn't really say, but small weapons weigh half as much. Maybe it's the same length, but thinner, so a halfling can wield it easier. Maybe halflings dance around a bit more as they're fighting and are better at ducking in and out of an opponent's fighting space, effectively lengthening their reach.

Really though, it's not the halflings with reach you should be worrying about. Put a reach weapon in the hands of an ogre and watch him beat on things 20 feet away.

If a small longspear is "just thinner", then as a DM I'd make it break all the time... 10' long chopstick shouldn't be weapons. I just don't get it.

For the ogre with reach, I know, I played a Half-Ogre Psy War/Fighter with a large spiked chain... real deadly.

 

[Dinkeldog]

If a small longspear is "just thinner", then as a DM I'd make it break all the time... 10' long chopstick shouldn't be weapons. I just don't get it.

For the ogre with reach, I know, I played a Half-Ogre Psy War/Fighter with a large spiked chain... real deadly.

Use sunder on them.

Oh, and this is really a rules thread.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Halflings. Get. Reach.

It's as easy as that. The explanation is a little more difficult, but not much: Small and medium creatures in D&D have the same reach (5 feet). This isn't very realistic, but it is easy to use. For the same reason, the range you have with a halbert is the same as the range you have with a dagger. For the same reason (and for balance reasons I think), small characters get the same out of range weapons as medium characters.

You could create rules that do this realistic, but you would have a lot of work to do: You must abandon the fixed 5-ft-increments, must create a weapon range for every weapon (and every size of weapon), must create a range modifier based on character race and size, and to get it really done, must also get weapon speed back into the system...... You're not done there, but it's a start, a first step on the way - the way of making D&D realistic, but unplayable and no fun at all (YMMV)

 

[Wippit Guud]

Ok for the small long reach, but dwarves tumbling in heavy armor? At ½ move dwarves won't get far anyway... is it really a problem? I got the book the day they were out, but I haven't played 3.5 yet!

You should read up on dwarves in 3.5... they aren't slowed by armor.

 

[Cybern]

You should read up on dwarves in 3.5... they aren't slowed by armor.

Tumbling is at ½ move, so 10' in one round for a tumbling dwarf (armor or not) isn't unbalancing IMHO.

 

[Cybern]

Use sunder on them.

Oh, and this is really a rules thread.

I don't think so, I just ask : DO SMALL CHARACTERS GET REACH WITH REACH WEAPONS, AND IF SO, WHY?

I don't want to get into the "because it's written in the PHB", or what page is rule XX, or explain rule XX, but why should halfling wield 10' long pole, and humans cannot wield 20' long ones? It's just plain stupid.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Tumbling is at ½ move, so 10' in one round for a tumbling dwarf (armor or not) isn't unbalancing IMHO

I haven`t yet memorized the 3.5 rules (probably, I never will ), but I isn`t tumbling only part of a move action, and you can tumble half the range? It was something like that in 3.0. If that is correct, a Dwarf could tumble 20 feet per round, not too bad, I think.

And even if not, it still allows a Dwarf to escape or enter the nasty reach of many dangerous foes without provoking AOOs. And if he falls from a height, he is also allowed a tumble check to reduce the damage.

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[melkoriii]

I haven`t yet memorized the 3.5 rules (probably, I never will ), but I isn`t tumbling only part of a move action, and you can tumble half the range? It was something like that in 3.0. If that is correct, a Dwarf could tumble 20 feet per round, not too bad, I think.

And even if not, it still allows a Dwarf to escape or enter the nasty reach of many dangerous foes without provoking AOOs. And if he falls from a height, he is also allowed a tumble check to reduce the damage.

Mustrum Ridcully

Nope.

3.5 Tumble is now half your movment.

From 3.5 SRD
Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so.

Human tumble is 15'
Halfling tumble is 10'

 

[melkoriii]

I don't think so, I just ask : DO SMALL CHARACTERS GET REACH WITH REACH WEAPONS, AND IF SO, WHY?

I don't want to get into the "because it's written in the PHB", or what page is rule XX, or explain rule XX, but why should halfling wield 10' long pole, and humans cannot wield 20' long ones? It's just plain stupid.

Think of a midget in real life.
They can use weapons the same size as a normal person but are some times half the height of a normal person.

There reach is no diferant than a normal persons when it comes to horazontal reach as they take up teh same space horazontaly.

Verticaly is a differant story.