Disarm with a Reach Weapon

[Lord Zardoz]

A halberd is not a reach weapon?

Oops. Must have misread something.

Ok, lets call it a Glaive then. Thanks for catching that.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[ThirdWizard]

However, a countertrip is not an attack of opportunity so you can make a counter trip against an opponent you do not threaten.

Oops, I did say trip. That's my bad.

You can't disarm (or trip) someone you cannot make a melee attack roll against, correct?

 

[Darklone]

Oops, I did say trip. That's my bad.

You can't disarm (or trip) someone you cannot make a melee attack roll against, correct?

DM fiat.

I'd say it makes sense to trip someone with his own spiked chain if he didn't trip you and doesn't let his chain go.

Disarm: If he tried to disarm you, his weapon is within your reach, right?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Disarm: If he tried to disarm you, his weapon is within your reach, right?

Same goes for any attack. I wouldn't allow a readied action against a character with a reach weapon in order to disarm them. I'd say that if you can't make a melee attack against someone, you can't disarm them, since a disarm is related to a melee attack.

 

[phindar]

This comes up against the occasional big nasty, Can a character use a readied action to attack a creature that it doesn't threaten, but that is attacking it with natural weapons? My group says yes (and there may even be arule to that effect, but I don't really know), because you're attacking the appendage.

Following that logic, if an AoO is provoked by a creature you don't threaten, you could use the AoO to make a Sunder attempt against the offending weapon (possibly provoking an AoO of your own).

 

[Hypersmurf]

This comes up against the occasional big nasty, Can a character use a readied action to attack a creature that it doesn't threaten, but that is attacking it with natural weapons? My group says yes (and there may even be arule to that effect, but I don't really know), because you're attacking the appendage.

There was an answer in the 3E Main FAQ that allowed this, but not a rule in the books.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Halberds were a Reach weapon in 3.0, I think.

People have been thinking halberds were a reach weapon in 3.0 since 3.0, though.

-Hyp.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Melee Attacks

With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

"within 5 feet" should probably just say "within reach." The readied action would be a melee attack, so you can't actually ready an attack against someone attacking you through reach.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

if a halbrid was a reach weapon, that would be awsome. Reach, slashing and piercing, ready on a charge... thats so much better then a glaive.

 

[phindar]

The "within 5'" has confused my group as well, with some people arguing it means opponents one hex away. I find that replacing that phrase with "adjacent" clears up a lot of confusion,if you play on a battlemat, since creatures will always be adjacent, 5' away, or farther. If you play on a non-gridded mat (as I prefer to), then characters won't always fit perfectly within the lines, and the "within 5'" and "5' away" make a little more sense. If that makes sense.