One Handed Melee Reach Weapon?

[Korak]

There's the kusari-gama in the DMG.

Also, if you don't mind taking the -2 on attack rolls and reduced damage, something like a Small longspear or Small glaive is considered a one-handed weapon for a Medium creature.

-Hyp.

I know how much we all love the FAQ... but the June 15th revision includes a ruling that "too small" reach weapons do not grant the wielder reach.

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

A reach weapon doubles its wielder’s natural reach, but
only if the weapon is at least of an appropriate size for the
wielder. Wielding a “too-small” reach weapon grants no reach.
An ogre (Large) wielding a Medium or smaller reach
weapon gains no reach from the weapon, and could thus attack
foes either 5 feet or 10 feet distant (as normal for a Large
creature wielding a non-reach weapon).

A human (Medium) wielding a Large or larger reach
weapon could attack a creature 10 feet away (but no further),
and could not use the weapon to attack a creature 5 feet away
(as normal for a Medium creature wielding a reach weapon). A
human wielding a Small reach weapon would gain no reach
from the weapon.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It looks to me that you are saying the 3.5 classification as a melee weapon is flawed.....

Not at all; just different to the 3E classification.

Dang... I can so see 2 small spiked chains in the cards in the near future...

Is it really worth it, for 1d6 20/x2 damage and -6 on attack rolls? (-2 for inappropriate size, -4 for TWF with a non-light off-hand weapon)

I know how much we all love the FAQ... but the June 15th revision includes a ruling that "too small" reach weapons do not grant the wielder reach.

Per the PHB, a Small or Medium wielder of a reach weapon can attack at 10 feet but not 5 feet, while a Large wielder of a reach weapon of appropriate size can attack 15 or 20 but not closer. 'of appropriate size' is not a condition for the Small or Medium wielder in the reach weapon rules.

It makes complete sense to me that a Medium wielder should get reach from a Small reach weapon - if a halfling with one-foot arms can reach ten feet with a small longspear (5 feet further than normal), it seems perfectly natural that a human with three-foot arms can reach just as far (5 feet further than normal)! Contrast this with the ogre using a Medium longspear - the spear increases the human's reach by 5 feet, why would it increase the ogre's by ten?

But it makes no sense to me that the human could not reach ten feet with a weapon the halfling could use to do so... making me happy the PHB does not prohibit it.

As it happens, though, my personal preference is to update the Savage Species system to 3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[Korak]

But it makes no sense to me that the human could not reach ten feet with a weapon the halfling could use to do so... making me happy the PHB does not prohibit it.

-Hyp.

FWIW, I don't claim to have read every post you've made on the subject over the last several years, but from what I have read, I tend to share your line of reasoning and conclusions on all weapon sizing and usage related questions. I am just gearing up to start playing Living Greyhawk again, so I am paying more attention than usual to the FAQ since it is canon for LG.

 

[Wrathamon]

In 3E, a whip was a ranged weapon. In 3.5, it's a melee weapon (though with some special rules). For instance, you can use Power Attack, and you add Str bonus to damage, and you can Cleave or use Whirlwind Attack with a whip.

-Hyp.

it is funky... it provokes like a ranged weapon and doesnt threaten... so you cant take AoO's with it or get a flank bonus.

it also cant deal any non-lethal damage with anyone with armor pretty much.

I am not sure what the whip is good for besides disarms and trips.


I will have to run the small spear past my DM and the the DMG weapon.

 

[BASHMAN]

Yes-- a Kusari-Gama, which is in the DMG. It is like the spiked chain, but only does a d6 dmg and is one handed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

it is funky... it provokes like a ranged weapon and doesnt threaten... so you cant take AoO's with it or get a flank bonus.

You can get a flanking bonus (since you're making a melee attack); you can't grant a flanking bonus (since you don't threaten).

In order to gain a flanking bonus, character A must be making a melee attack while character B (his ally) threatens the same opponent from directly opposite. With a whip, you can be character A, but you can't be character B.

-Hyp.

 

[Wrathamon]

You can get a flanking bonus (since you're making a melee attack); you can't grant a flanking bonus (since you don't threaten).

In order to gain a flanking bonus, character A must be making a melee attack while character B (his ally) threatens the same opponent from directly opposite. With a whip, you can be character A, but you can't be character B.

-Hyp.

That's good to know my Kenku Bard/Marshall shall be pleased to know that or I should say his allies.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That's good to know my Kenku Bard/Marshall shall be pleased to know that or I should say his allies.

No, the Kenku. His allies don't benefit, so they won't care

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

'of appropriate size' is not a condition for the Small or Medium wielder in the reach weapon rules.

That does not seem like a truism.

It makes complete sense to me that a Medium wielder should get reach from a Small reach weapon - if a halfling with one-foot arms can reach ten feet with a small longspear (5 feet further than normal), it seems perfectly natural that a human with three-foot arms can reach just as far (5 feet further than normal)!

Agreed that this certainly seems to make sense from one angle (not that this is a requisite for many D&D rules), but there is also the possibility that holding the weapon with two hands allows the halfling to hold the weapon farther back, while a human holding it that far back with one hand would cause the long weapon to be horribly unbalanced (possibly the reason why D&D humans don't have normal, one-handed reach weapons of their own size).

Aren't you the one that normally preaches literalism? Here you seem to be applying common sense (i.e. RAI) to a rule that may not require it (and one in which the FAQ weighted in on).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Aren't you the one that normally preaches literalism? Here you seem to be applying common sense (i.e. RAI) to a rule that may not require it (and one in which the FAQ weighted in on).

How so?

The rules say that a Small or Medium wielder of a reach weapon threatens X, and that a Large wielder of an appropriately-sized reach weapon threatens Y.

What are the conditions for a Small or Medium creature to threaten X?
a. He is wielding a reach weapon.

What are the conditions for a Large creature to threaten Y?
a. He is wielding a reach weapon.
b. The weapon is appropriately-sized.

Now, it happens that I think common sense agrees with the rules as written in this case, but my initial interpretation comes from what's written in the PHB.

-Hyp.