Reach weapon weirdness (M Magus, wielding a SMALL reach weapon)?


Rules Questions


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Okay I have no idea if this works...or for that matter if it's legal in Society Play even if it does work.

First the rules on Weapon Size.

PRD wrote:


Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature wields a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon (it still takes the –2 penalty for using an inappropriately sized weapon). If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

If I am interpreting this correctly, a small version of a reach weapon becomes one-handed and still has reach when in the hands of a medium wielder. Albeit smaller damage die and -2 penalty to hit.

Second, Magus Spell Combat.

PRD Magus wrote:


Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty).

And Spell Strike

PRD Magus wrote:


Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar

So by taking a horrendous hit to attack (-2 for size, -2 for spell combat) and a smaller base damage die...your magus gets to keep reach via a reach weapon while using Spell Combat to reach out and touch someone via Spell Strike and maintaining his full-attack.

I must be interpreting or reading the rules wrong, this isn't legal is it? Errated? Or is it okay because of the big penalties to hit?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Rerednaw wrote:
If I am interpreting this correctly, a small version of a reach weapon becomes one-handed and still has reach when in the hands of a medium wielder. Albeit smaller damage die and -2 penalty to hit.

Reach weapons lose reach when no longer appropriately sized for you.


Cite, please, James? I cannot find that rule.

It seems especially odd since an inappropriately sized weapon could be larger, which would make losing reach seem odd.

Grand Lodge

The weapon retains it's reach quality.

Being inappropriately sized does not cause weapons to lose qualities, unless specifically specified. Like the Rapier's ability to be used with Weapon Finesse.

Another way of getting reach one-handed, is the Whip.


Use the lunge feat to get reach on regular weapons or a whip


Reach is based on the size of the wielder and the quality of the weapon, not the size of the weapon. Technically, a Medium character can wield a Tiny longspear as a light weapon and still have the usual 10' reach, just as a Medium character can wield a Large whip in two hands but only get the usual 15' reach.

Or the GM can put her foot down and say "ha ha no".

Liberty's Edge

First:

PRD wrote:
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.

That rule is meant only for small and medium creatures with small or medium weapons.

Unless there is a FAQ somewhere a medium creature with a small reach weapon has reach and can't attack adjacent foes with that weapon.

Here are the stumbling blocks of the OP idea:

PRD wrote:


Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Block 1:

Changing the weapon size don't change the weapon designation, only the effort required to wield the weapon.

PRD wrote:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

Block 2:

The magus ability require a weapon designated as a "light or one-handed melee weapon", not one that require X effort to wield.

The small reach weapon maintain his original designation, so if it is not a valid weapon for a magus of the correct size, it is not a valid weapon for the magus of the wrong size.

Liberty's Edge

Zhayne wrote:

Cite, please, James? I cannot find that rule.

It seems especially odd since an inappropriately sized weapon could be larger, which would make losing reach seem odd.

James is citing a ruling that is in the 3.5 FAQ. It is based on the same text as the sections in PF (I'm 95% sure it is the same text). It is subject to the same mixed reception that anything from the 3.5 FAQ garners: some accept it, some are unaware of it, some reject it outright.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:

First:

PRD wrote:
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.

That rule is meant only for small and medium creatures with small or medium weapons.

Unless there is a FAQ somewhere a medium creature with a small reach weapon has reach and can't attack adjacent foes with that weapon.

Here are the stumbling blocks of the OP idea:

PRD wrote:


Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Block 1:

Changing the weapon size don't change the weapon designation, only the effort required to wield the weapon.

PRD wrote:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

Block 2:

The magus ability require a weapon designated as a "light or one-handed melee weapon", not one that require...

This is spelled out very well and is concise. Thank you, Deigo. The Flip side of this is the argument that was proffered in the Thunder and Fang thread, where a character is trying to double wield two Earthbreakers, or the wielding of an oversized one, because the feat worded poorly.

Still can't do it, though others have the fevered belief...


@Diego: Care to explain how the Staff Magus works, then?


Here's an earlier discussion on this.

James Jacobs said that S Longspears counted as reach weapons by RAW.

Grand Lodge

I find it odd that anyone would argue that a 3 foot gnome wielding a gnome sized long spear can hit someone 10 feet away, yet a 6 foot orc, wielding the same spear cannot...

Diego, a inappropriately sized weapon has it's designation changed up or down one step. This works just fine.

I mean really, you are trading a -4 to hit to hit things exactly 10 feet away, with ~1d6 damage + spell. You could instead use a whip and hit things 5-15 feet away at -2 for 1d3 + spell damage. It's not like this is really unbalanced.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Howie23 wrote:
James is citing a ruling that is in the 3.5 FAQ.

Actually I'm thinking of this:

Core p141 wrote:
A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

We know that a Small Weapon in a Medium PC isn't appropriately sized and would lose reach only because of context. It would be better if this was clearly written.

Liberty's Edge

James Risner wrote:
Howie23 wrote:
James is citing a ruling that is in the 3.5 FAQ.

Actually I'm thinking of this:

Core p141 wrote:
A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

We know that a Small Weapon in a Medium PC isn't appropriately sized and would lose reach only because of context. It would be better if this was clearly written.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth.

This passage is the basis of the 3.5 ruling. As you've said, it could be clearer, which is why 3.5 had to deal with it as well.

The situation with small and medium creatures is unique in having the same reach for two size categories, which does lead to some WTF kinds of situations.


James Risner wrote:
Howie23 wrote:
James is citing a ruling that is in the 3.5 FAQ.

Actually I'm thinking of this:

Core p141 wrote:
A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

We know that a Small Weapon in a Medium PC isn't appropriately sized and would lose reach only because of context. It would be better if this was clearly written.

Wehre did you get "Reach weapons lose reach when no longer appropriately sized for you. " from that line though?

Liberty's Edge

Edit: wow, weird cut and paste but it could have been worse. ;)

Look at this from a different direction. Based upon the passage above, what is the reach of a large humanoid wielding a medium sized long spear?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Finlanderboy wrote:
Where did you get "Reach weapons lose reach when no longer appropriately sized for you. " from that line though?

From that line, taken in context.


James Risner wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Where did you get "Reach weapons lose reach when no longer appropriately sized for you. " from that line though?

From that line, taken in context.

I am ssrry I do not see it.

I think you are reading into it.

Grand Lodge

Howie23 wrote:

Edit: wow, weird cut and paste but it could have been worse. ;)

Look at this from a different direction. Based upon the passage above, what is the reach of a large humanoid wielding a medium sized long spear?

10 - 15 feet. It add 5 feet to his minumum and maximum range, just like it adds 5 feet to a medium creatures minimum and maximum range. As a matter of fact, all the wierdness more or less goes away if you just say "a reach weapon small or larger adds X to both your minimum and maximum range. Where X is the default reach for your size of creature."

In fact a lot of this comes from the fact that they decided to have two types of reach (monster reach, which lets you hit targets up to X away and weapon reach which hits targets exactly X away, and then tried to have weapons start doubling reach)

For that matter, what do you do when a medium creature with reach 10 uses a medium sized weapon? Does it get reach 15-20? what if it has reach fifteen?

Or what if you have a large monster with reach 5? (I think some of the quadrupeds have that) Does it only get reach 10 with a large weapon?

Grand Lodge

@Rerednaw: By RAW, despite what some posters state, it works. Because some people read things a little bit differently, expect table variation.

Best option, if you think your Magus can afford it, is to go the whip route, since that will give you a weapon which you can use Spell Combat and Spellstrike with against any opponent from adjacent to 15' away.

You would probably want at least the Whip Mastery feat (although that comes at 3rd level at the earliest for a Magus), so you don't have to worry about the spell damage not being applied, though. Improved Whip Mastery, of course, adds in the ability to threaten areas both adjacent and 5' away from your PC, but takes a BAB of 5 to achieve.

Liberty's Edge

kinevon wrote:

@Rerednaw: By RAW, despite what some posters state, it works. Because some people read things a little bit differently, expect table variation.

Best option, if you think your Magus can afford it, is to go the whip route, since that will give you a weapon which you can use Spell Combat and Spellstrike with against any opponent from adjacent to 15' away.

You would probably want at least the Whip Mastery feat (although that comes at 3rd level at the earliest for a Magus), so you don't have to worry about the spell damage not being applied, though. Improved Whip Mastery, of course, adds in the ability to threaten areas both adjacent and 5' away from your PC, but takes a BAB of 5 to achieve.

Or , if you are playing a hex crafter, prehensile hair does the trick on this just fine.


FLite wrote:
As a matter of fact, all the wierdness more or less goes away if you just say "a reach weapon small or larger adds X to both your minimum and maximum range. Where X is the default reach for your size of creature."

Great rule, but add ", minimum 5 ft.", for the tiny creatures.

Also great questions, which have answers:

FLite wrote:
For that matter, what do you do when a medium creature with reach 10 uses a medium sized weapon? Does it get reach 15-20? what if it has reach fifteen?

A medium creature with 10' reach, using a medium reach weapon would have a reach of 10-15 ft. Just curious, can you cite an example of this that can be used to wield a weapon, and isn't listed as "+5 ft".

FLite wrote:
Or what if you have a large monster with reach 5? (I think some of the quadrupeds have that) Does it only get reach 10 with a large weapon?

Yes, reach 10 ft. Fortunately the rule says "Typical" large character, and creatures like Centaurs that use medium weapons have a quality that specifically calls that out, and are thus not typical.

Liberty's Edge

While the asertations has been made that a large creature wielding a medium long spear would give reach of at 10-15', and inability to attack at 5', to to a universal "a medium reach weapon adds 5' reach", that universal rule does not exist. Likewise, example of a long large creature using a large long spear. The last post describing the resulting reach as 10 feet is correct per 3.5. In PF, both of these are undefined.

The 3.5 rule, as spelled out in the 3.5 FAQ, was based on the general idea that an appropriately sized reach weapon doubled natural reach. And, that inappropriately sized reach weapons conferred no reach beyond natural reach. The reason is this was adopted rather than reach being the result of natural reach plus a weapon's reach is that this is a mechanic that would be a new concept for the game. New concepts add complexity and can interfere with rules mastery when they are fabricated out of whole cloth.

A des idiom on this isn't subject just to the particular point of view about what is realistic and makes sense, but what is good for the game's design overall.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Something that Diego pointed out that seems to be missed is that the weapon still counts as it's original designation even as the character is wielding it differently because of the size difference.

If you couldn't use it before because of the designation, having a smaller one wouldn't suddenly allow for it's use.

This is the same point I was trying to get across in another thread regarding Earth Breakers.


Thax, quit spreading disinformation. A one-handed weapon is one with an effort category of "one-handed". That could be a properly sized Longsword, it could be a Greatsword one size too small, it could be a Dagger one size too big, or it could be a Quarterstaff wielded one-handed via the Quarterstaff Master feat.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

The weapon retains it's reach quality.

Being inappropriately sized does not cause weapons to lose qualities, unless specifically specified. Like the Rapier's ability to be used with Weapon Finesse.

Another way of getting reach one-handed, is the Whip.

lol -- imagine getting reach with a diminutive long spear (the size of a pencil)


Tiny would be the smallest Longspear a Medium creature could wield. It would take a Small creature to wield a Diminutive Longspear; and yes, it would still give reach by RAW ^-^


Necro...

What about a Moss troll (reach 15 with claws) using an undersized longspear...

I know it specifies claws, but those are on his fingers, right? so what would HIS reach be?

30ft?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Reach weapon weirdness (M Magus, wielding a SMALL reach weapon)? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.