Reach

[Sithobi1]

Two sets of feats, the Aberrant feats from LoM and the Deformity feats from HoH will each grant you +5 reach. Warshaper will grant you +5 reach. Blood Wind simulates some of the effects of reach for natural weapons.

 

[frankthedm]

Medium Character with Monkey Grip and a Large Reach Weapon
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
oo+++++++oo
oo+ooooo+oo
oo+ooooo+oo
oo+ooxoo+oo
oo+ooooo+oo
oo+ooooo+oo
oo+++++++oo
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo

Large Character with Monkey Grip and a Huge Reach Weapon
++++++++++++
++++++++++++
++oooooooo++
++oooooooo++
++oooooooo++
++oooxxooo++
++oooxxooo++
++oooooooo++
++oooooooo++
++oooooooo++
++++++++++++
++++++++++++

Actually No. No extra reach is gained when wielding a larger reach weapon. Not gaining any extra reach is about as reasonable as the ability to wield the weapon in the first place.

Also creatures large and larger with reach weapons follow the one square then two squares rule when measuring threatened areas diagonaly.

Medium normal weapon >>>> Huge with reach weapon <<<< Medium rider with reach weapon

 

[phindar]

Why not? I'm just going by the PHB and CW, so there is some interpretation there. In the PHB, Reach weapons double the user's natural reach, but its impossible for a Medium creature to wield a Large two-handed weapon, so its not addressed. CW's Monkey Grip makes it possible, but doesn't mention Reach.

I can see the argument that its not RAW, but sometimes things that aren't possible by the RAW become possible later (like a human wielding an ogre's glaive), and adjustments have to be made. An ogre's glaive is twice as long as a human's glaive, so why not give the human the Reach bonus if he can wield it?

If the original RAW stated that they weapons double the reach of a wielder of that size category, it wouldn't be an issue. I think its just an oversight, a difference between the Spirit or the Letter of the Rules.

I don't keep up with the errata or the FAQ's, so its possible the game designers have come down on the other side of this issue. Even so, I'll say this in all modesty: My Way is Better.

 

[Elethiomel]

Also creatures large and larger with reach weapons follow the one square then two squares rule when measuring threatened areas diagonaly.

Why does this apply to Large and larger creatures with reach weapons, but not to Large and smaller creatures with non-reach weapons? Can you give me a rulebook page?

 

[kayn99]

With all of this reach and supper reach weapons.... What is the closes that a person could fight with the weapon? If a weapon allows you to fight 15 feet out should you be able to strike 10 feet out. A creature that normally could do it I caould see as fine, but a creature that is just using a very big weapon (monkey grip) should have the limitation of not being able to strike 5 and 10 away and only in the 15' block.


Kayn

 

[3d6]

Why does this apply to Large and larger creatures with reach weapons, but not to Large and smaller creatures with non-reach weapons? Can you give me a rulebook page?

Check the Space and Reach diagram starting on page 308 of the DMG.

 

[Elethiomel]

Check the Space and Reach diagram starting on page 308 of the DMG.

Interesting. The Large(tall) diagram is even somewhat inconsistent with the logic that Large creatures with reach weapons go by the diagonal spaces rule, since if reach weapons go by the rules for diagonal spaces the spaces I mark "O" here should both be threatened by a reach weapon and a non-reach weapon.

...RRRR...
.RRRRRRRR.
.ROMMMMOR.
RRMMMMMMRR
RRMMCCMMRR
RRMMCCMMRR
RRMMMMMMRR
.ROMMMMOR.
.RRRRRRRR.
...RRRR...

Key:
C: Creature
M: Threatened if wielding a weapon without reach
O: By the rules only threatened if wielding a weapon without reach, but "should" by the "diagonal spaces logic" be threatened if wielding either.
R: Threatened if wielding a weapon with reach.

 

[frankthedm]

Interesting. The Large(tall) diagram is even somewhat inconsistent with the logic that Large creatures with reach weapons go by the diagonal spaces rule, since if reach weapons go by the rules for diagonal spaces the spaces I mark "O" here should both be threatened by a reach weapon and a non-reach weapon.

That inconsitancy is the same one that allows a medium creature with a reach weapon to attack in the diagonal direction at all.

 

[frankthedm]

since if reach weapons go by the rules for diagonal spaces the spaces I mark "O" here should both be threatened by a reach weapon and a non-reach weapon.

Thats where this line comes into play...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreaturesInCombat
Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can’t strike at their natural reach or less.

I'll make a sprite based diagram of whan the DMG showed.

 

[phindar]

A creature that normally could do it I caould see as fine, but a creature that is just using a very big weapon (monkey grip) should have the limitation of not being able to strike 5 and 10 away and only in the 15' block.

Check my diagrams. Other than the diagonals (which frankthedm is correct about, and thats my bad), thats how its done. A Large character with a Large Reach Weapon threatens two spaces, two spaces away. A Medium Character with a Large Reach Weapon threatens one space, two spaces away.

Medium Character with Monkey Grip and a Large Reach Weapon
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
oo+++++++oo
oo+ooooo+oo
oo+ooooo+oo
oo+ooxoo+oo
oo+ooooo+oo
oo+ooooo+oo
oo+++++++oo
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo

Large Character with Large Reach Weapon
oooooooooooo
o++++++++++o
o++++++++++o
o++oooooo++o
o++oooooo++o
o++ooxxoo++o
o++ooxxoo++o
o++oooooo++o
o++oooooo++o
o++++++++++o
o++++++++++o
oooooooooooo

Granted, they're not as visually appealling as frankthedm's graphics, but I did have to master the {font}{/font} commands.

Personally, I think this is a fair and valid interpretation of the RAW, just going by the PHB and the CW. (Further supplements and official comments may or may not bear me out on this.) I don't mind writing the minority opinion in this case. I don't think of myself as rules lawyer, I think of myself as a rules constituitonal scholar.