Reach mechanic

[toucanbuzz]

Homebrew brainstorm about implementing Reach and not bogging the game down. Common sense (or watching someone fencing with a spear) will tell you a man with a dagger is severely disadvantaged against a spear. The spear-wielder can poke and prod that spear at their face, torso, etc., making it a damn pain to close ranks with your knife. To close ranks is to risk your body, but once you're in close, the shorter reach of the dagger allows for some pinpoint attacks.

So that's the realistic approach, which D&D, wisely, has distanced itself from to avoid bogging down combat with specifics that would turn combat into legal sessions of referencing rules. But, Reach is such an integral part of melee combat that I'd like to incorporate it somehow, and easily.

With that said, considering a simple mechanic wherein we assign a Reach category to weapons and implement a Reaction attack as per the Spear Mastery feat.

Reach Mechanic

Hand (touch, fists, dagger, small or tiny monsters)
Short (hand axe, light hammer, sickle, short sword)
Medium (club, mace, flail, javelin, morning star, rapier, scimitar, war pick, Warhammer, medium monsters)
Long (quarterstaff, battleaxe, greataxe, great sword, long sword, maul, large monsters)
Very Long (spear, trident, huge creatures)
Extremely long (all weapons with "reach" property, colossal monsters, all monsters with 10' or more reach)

Unless surprised, if you have a greater reach category than your opponent, you can opt to use your Reaction to attack once as they close ranks, no matter if you fall later in the initiative round. Once the enemy has engaged you, this rule no longer applies unless the foe goes beyond your reach again (whether voluntarily or not). Basically follows the mechanic of Spear Mastery. Note: Spear Mastery would still require the bonus action to get the extra damage by "setting" for an attack.

Of course, we could go further. After all, why use a short weapon at all? Well, in medieval battle descriptions, they were more effective once you closed ranks because their balance and size allowed for some greater damage. I think D&D covers this, in some way, by DEX-based characters. D&D doesn't do, as a weapon characteristic, critical hit ranges anymore, except as a Fighter class mechanic.

Anyhoo, constructive criticism needed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Homebrew brainstorm about implementing Reach ...
Unless surprised, if you have a greater reach category than your opponent, you can opt to use your Reaction to attack once as they close ranks, no matter if you fall later in the initiative round. Once the enemy has engaged you, this rule no longer applies unless the foe goes beyond your reach again (whether voluntarily or not).

Of course, we could go further. After all, why use a short weapon at all?

You could give the shorter-weapon-weilder advantage on his first attack, if the longer-weapon-weilder used his reaction to attack. Then while engaged, the long weapon is degraded a reach category or two as the wielder adjusts his grip to deal with his attacker.

What 3e did, of course, was have Reach weapons gain an AoO for closing, but then be unable to attack adjacent, at all.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Ran it by my players during a break as two of them are currently using "short" range weapons with DEX-based characters, after they'd run into berserkers with greataxes.. The thought of those beasts getting an extra shot on them with no benefit should the PC close into tight combat didn't sit right. After all, there's a reason Knights carried a dagger.

I proposed, as above, a higher crit range, which in theory if extreme enough could encourage foes to abandon big weapons in favor of close combat ones after an initial engagement. Then it got messy as we talked about a combat where the foes were face-to-face or clashing from 5' away, and there's no way to tell which way it'd be going in D&D (unless you were grappling).

Suppose the designers ran into this as well. Every time you add a rule, you stand a good chance of spawning another.

 

[Mouseferatu]

After all, there's a reason Knights carried a dagger.

Well, normally the dagger was either a last-ditch backup weapon, or used to finish off a fallen opponent once you had time/opportunity to get in at the armor joints.

But yes, there would need to be some balancing mechanic. I'd be inclined to keep it simpler: just as there's already a feat for reach weapons, maybe create a feat that grants a benefit to people using light weapons when adjacent to creatures with reach greater than 5 ft.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, normally the dagger was either a last-ditch backup weapon, or used to finish off a fallen opponent once you had time/opportunity to get in at the armor joints.
But yes, there would need to be some balancing mechanic. I'd be inclined to keep it simpler: just as there's already a feat for reach weapons, maybe create a feat that grants a benefit to people using light weapons when adjacent to creatures with reach greater than 5 ft.

Feats are so 'big' in 5e, though, and poking someone with a spear as they move towards you hardly requires exceptional skill or insight - heck, in a simple scenario where you're not trying to handle multiple opponents, even proficiency wouldn't seem to be necessary. If the other guy knows what he's doing watch out, but it's not an unintuitive thing to do, availing yourself of a reach advantage.

Even in 4e with 'small' feats it seemed absurd to require one to gain a benefit from reach. I guess it's all just a big pendulum swing away from the 3.5 chain tripper builds.