35ft reach???

[Fortain]

@ Mistwell

Thank you. There's a difference between being flat wrong (1+1=3), and disagreeing with your interpretation. Most people who discount the FAQ as being "wrong" seem to have the second problem.

 

[Fortain]

@ Deset Gled

Of which the FAQ is, whether or not people want to believe it. Please, let's not have this thread dissolve into "FAQ is/not official".

 

[Mistwell]

To reach its interpretation, the FAQ states that the rules were in error when they used the term "adjacent", and that the term "natural reach" should be used instead. Since "adjacent" is a defined game term that means something very different than "natural reach", this change can only be made in an errata document.

The FAQ ruling is certainly reasonable and logical, but the explanation it gives is not valid.

Only if your reading is narrow.

The FAQ doesn't say "error" or "should be used instead", those are your words. And since you are a stickler for accuracy and precision, let's stick to what the FAQ says rather than what you read into it.

The FAQ explains why adjacent is correct given an assumption of a normal medium sized character. It says: "What the description really means is that a character wielding a spiked chain can attack creatures that are within her natural reach (in addition to those at the normal range of a reach weapon)."

It's not saying it's in error, it's saying that the meaning of the rule is in question, and there are at least two competing mutually exclusive interpretations. So when frequently asked "what's this description of this rule mean" he gives the answer "the description really means...". It's a clarification, not an error, and not a change in rules. It's exactly what FAQs are supposed to do, which is to clarify what things mean when it's initially unclear to enough people that they are often asked about it.

In this case, when you change the assumptions then one of the natural interpretations you can reach is correct and the other is not, and the FAQ clarifies which they meant.

I know you think you're right, but from my perspective (and I have no dog in this fight) you are reading it too narrow and then telling everyone your narrow reading is the only possible reading. The explanation given is perfectly valid from my read of it.

 

[Folly]

With reach weapons they are fairly specific that they double your natural reach. Which means changing the size of the weapon does not have an impact on reach. This doesn't mean you cant run it differently, it just means that it is a house rule rather than a base rule.

The reach monkey that I prefer is:

Changling from Eberron.
Aberration feat: +5 natural reach
Warshaper: +5 natural reach
Enlarge Person/Expansion: +5 or +10 natural
Reach weapon: double reach
Thus leaving you with reach of 40 with enlarge person & 50 with expansion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sorry I've been away so long...

Translation: We are changing the rules without issuing errata, and are blatantly disregarding the Primary Source Rule. Therefore, nothing we say here has any practical value.

Well...
1) Sage Advice (Andy Collins) Dragon #333:

Q: How do reach weapons work if they are of a different size than the creature wielding them? Say, an ogre wielding a S or M glaive, or a human with the Monkey Grip feat wielding a L ranseur? What is the reach for each situation?

A: ...A human (M) wielding a L or larger reach weapon would be able to attack a creature 10' away (but no further), and would not be able to use the weapon to attack a creature 5' away (as normal for a M creature wielding a reach weapon)...
The Player's Handbook isn't as clear on this as it could be, although an example of reach in action on page 113 provides pretty strong support: "A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away..." [italics added by Sage] While this reference doesn't mention the ability to wield a reach weapon larger than the appropriate size, allowing such a weapon to grant reach to its wielder is a reasonable extension of the spirit and intent of the rule. [boldface mine]

At best, an internally inconsistent answer.

I'm guessing he changes his response in regards to the first paragraph because he's assuming the PC in the first example doesn't have Monkey Grip and thus can't wield an oversized reach weapon as per normal, while in the second paragraph, the PC can use an oversized reach weapon as if it were normal.

As always, YMMV.

2) Some other things to consider to add to reach. You already noted the Aberration feat Inhuman Reach (LoM p 180; prereq: Aberration Blood LoM p178) which adds 5' to your reach. There is ALSO the Vile feat Deformity [Tall] (HoH p 121; prereq: Willing Deformity, HoH p125) which gives your PC the natural reach of a PC one size larger. With both, a M sized PC would gain the natural reach of a L creature, +5' for the Inhuman Reach.

 

[moritheil]

Rather than start from square one with the FAQ debate every time it gets brought up, could we simply note that some people find fault with the FAQ, and thus as a practical matter in terms of rules interpretation it's always nice to have an explanation that does not rely on the FAQ?

 

[Felix]

The spiked chain is really broken because of what it is, a mobile contortable, long weapon which has spikes running all the way down its length. If I was a dm and wanted to fix it, Id make it do much less damage. like 1d4. Or you know what, how about its only 5ft long?

Just another spiked chains are broken thread.

May I invite you here to discuss? There is argument aplenty on brokenness and no need to involve another thread.