Logical thought

[Gort]

If you have a reach weapon that negates your 5-foot reach, (such as a polearm, say a longspear) and the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, would it be reasonable to say that you threated within 5 foot also, but only with your unarmed strike attack bonus and damage?

After all, you are meant to be able to attack with all parts of your body, even say, your legs, which are not being used to hold the polearm.

Same would go for archers, naturally.

 

[MarauderX]

hm... sure?

I really see no technical rules reason why not, as a recent monk-related question very similar was answered with a "sure, man, you can do it." The situation dealt with monks disarming and holding two-handed weapons, and whether she still got her remaining attacks with feet, elbows, head, whatever.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Yup, but that was monks. Not just people with the IUS feat.

I don't think it should count for non-monks.

 

[Camarath]

For the reach weapon you could wield one sized for a creature one size smaller so you could wield it one-handed

 

[Tabarnak Smokeblower]

For the reach weapon you could wield one sized for a creature one size smaller so you could wield it one-handed

Really? are the rules that... dumb?

TS

 

[Camarath]

Really? are the rules that... dumb?

Read the Weapon Size section of the 3.5 PHB on page 113. This is like Monkey Grip with out needing the feat but you do have to reduce the damage one step. My sentence was awkward but you really can weild a small sized Longspear (damage 1d6), at a -2 to attack, one-handed.

 

[Jhyrryl]

Really? are the rules that... dumb?

Yes. The problem stems from the fact that under the new space rules for creatures, Small and Medium creatures both take up the same space, when all other creature spaces scale with size category. The new rules for weapon sizes were apparently supposed to parallel creature sizes, but they fail to account for that exception.