PDA

View Full Version : Wierd Reach Weapon Ruling



No brains
2011-01-24, 05:57 PM
With a reach weapon, you can attack a non adjacent square.

Adjacent ogre attacking me occupies that square in my attack range.

Can I attack the ogre?

Show your work.

CapnCJ
2011-01-24, 05:59 PM
Well it's simple, you just.. Err... Hmm.

I'd probably say you couldn't, though i'm not really sure why.

TroubleBrewing
2011-01-24, 06:10 PM
You can't attack things adjacent to you with a reach weapon. Try the feat "Shorten Grip" out of Dragon Magazine Compendium. (Note: there is another choice, "Short Haft" out of PHB2: it's a trap. Don't take it.)

tyckspoon
2011-01-24, 06:11 PM
If any square the ogre occupies is in your threatened area, you can attack the ogre. It's really hard for bigger creatures to zone out smaller ones like that.

Waker
2011-01-24, 06:15 PM
Most reach double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.
PHB pg 113. As was stated, there are feats to get around this particular limitation. You can also take Improved Unarmed Strike, wear gauntlets or armor spikes to allow you to still threaten adjacent squares.

Zherog
2011-01-24, 06:18 PM
So... If I understand your example, the ogre occupies the square next to you as well as the one 10' away (because it's Large). Correct?

If so, yes, you can attack the ogre. I'm not finding it right now, but somewhere is a quote that says if you can attack any square the creature occupies, you can attack it.

AslanCross
2011-01-24, 06:20 PM
You can attack a creature if any square in its space is within your threatened reach. The ogre is big enough that you can stab his far shoulder. Remember that the characters aren't just standing there like chess pieces; they are ducking and weaving and moving about their space. Attacking an adjacent ogre with a reach weapon can probably be fluffed as an aggressive thrust that causes the ogre to stumble back a bit so that you can more easily hit him with the point.

Arbitrarity
2011-01-24, 06:33 PM
Actually, I can't find anything in the SRD specifying that threatening has anything to do with where you can attack. It specifies you can't attack adjacent squares with a reach weapon (barring specific exemptions i.e. spiked chain). However, if the ogre moves and remains adjacent to you, it provokes an attack of opportunity.

But you can't attack it.

I AM CONFUSED.

Zherog
2011-01-24, 06:43 PM
But you can't attack it.


Yes, you can. You can't attack the adjacent square, that's true. But you can attack the square 10' away, which the ogre is occupying as well.

FMArthur
2011-01-24, 06:47 PM
Most reach double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.

If this actually what it says in the Player's Handbook and is not clarified elsewhere in the book, its errata, or the Rules Compendium, then I think the answer is unfortunately the opposite of what pretty much everyone here seems to think. And it would make sense, if you ask me.

linebackeru
2011-01-24, 06:51 PM
You can't attack a creature in an adjacent square with a reach weapon. If the ogre is in an adjacent square, you can't attack it, regardless of what other squares it occupies.

Similar thought experiment: There's a human standing in front of you, and another human in the square behind him (such that the three of you are in a line). Can you attack the human who is 10' away with a reach weapon through the guy in front of you? Probably not. Same deal with the ogre. You can't attack his butt through his chest.

FMArthur
2011-01-24, 06:57 PM
Similar thought experiment: There's a human standing in front of you, and another human in the square behind him (such that the three of you are in a line). Can you attack the human who is 10' away with a reach weapon through the guy in front of you? Probably not. Same deal with the ogre. You can't attack his butt through his chest.

Well actually you can because you don't occupy all of the five-foot space and are presumed to be shifting around inside of it to attack people around each other (because I think you can). This is a bit of a silly contradiction, isn't it? :smallbiggrin:

AslanCross
2011-01-24, 07:00 PM
Curmudgeon, where art thou? :smalleek:

FelixG
2011-01-24, 07:00 PM
You can't attack a creature in an adjacent square with a reach weapon. If the ogre is in an adjacent square, you can't attack it, regardless of what other squares it occupies.

Similar thought experiment: There's a human standing in front of you, and another human in the square behind him (such that the three of you are in a line). Can you attack the human who is 10' away with a reach weapon through the guy in front of you? Probably not. Same deal with the ogre. You can't attack his butt through his chest.

You can attack around the person, gm might say it provides some partial cover but you can just smack them as normal by the rules

Curmudgeon
2011-01-24, 07:04 PM
Most reach double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature solely in an adjacent square. I've added one word to help in reading this, which can be inferred from this longer Rules Compendium quote (from page 150):
Most reach weapons double the wielderís natural reach, allowing the wielder to attack at that reach but not within its normal reach. A typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature solely in an adjacent square. Since you can attack at that reach, the restriction on attacking adjacent creatures is for those solely adjacent to you. A larger creature occupying adjacent (non-reachable) as well as reachable squares remains attackable.

It's just awkward phrasing, folks.

kyoryu
2011-01-24, 08:13 PM
Personally, I'd rule that you can't. You can't attack at closer ranges due to the inability of the weapon to be effective at that range - saying that you somehow hook it around or whatever to attack the back of the creature strikes me as odd.

Curmudgeon - is the second block the Rules Compendium as written, or with your changes?

FelixG
2011-01-24, 08:21 PM
Curmudgeon - is the second block the Rules Compendium as written, or with your changes?

That is with his changes.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-24, 08:21 PM
Curmudgeon - is the second block the Rules Compendium as written, or with your changes?
I added one word (solely), as stated. The highlighted (bold) phrase explains why I think that appropriately clarifies the meaning.

kyoryu
2011-01-24, 08:24 PM
I added one word (solely), as stated. The highlighted (bold) phrase explains why I think that appropriately clarifies the meaning.

Ah, okay.

I stand by my interpretation, then, as it also matches the SRD text :)

Elric VIII
2011-01-24, 08:30 PM
Just a thought: Doesn't the fact that an Ogre is a bipedal, large creature mean it technically occupies a cube of 10' x 10' x 10'? Does this mean a medium (5' x 5' x 5') creature can attack its head or upper body in the same way you could attack a creature flying 10 feet above you with a reach weapon?

Arbitrarity
2011-01-24, 08:38 PM
I added one word (solely), as stated. The highlighted (bold) phrase explains why I think that appropriately clarifies the meaning.

I agree with this. But this is because I think of attacks as being targeted at squares foremost, which makes AOO's and tiny creatures quite easy to understand.
Also, if I'm hovering adjacent, but above, the Tarrasque, are you going to argue I can't attack it with a reach weapon?

KillianHawkeye
2011-01-24, 08:51 PM
Also, if I'm hovering adjacent, but above, the Tarrasque, are you going to argue I can't attack it with a reach weapon?

I think making the creature larger is actually a good way to illustrate the point. Let's Use a diagram. A is the character in question, and Os represent some very large creature.

OOOO
OOOO
OOOOA
OOOO

Based on this configuration, would you still insist that A can't attack O with with a reach polearm? Because it seems to me like he could, even though the two are definitely adjacent.

kyoryu
2011-01-24, 09:24 PM
Based on this configuration, would you still insist that A can't attack O with with a reach polearm? Because it seems to me like he could, even though the two are definitely adjacent.

Yes, I would.

The problem is that there's something right in your face, preventing the polearm from being used effectively.

But, that's just how I'd rule it, and people can rule it however they want. The SRD does seem pretty clear in that you can't attack an adjacent opponent with a reach weapon. If you want to argue that's RAW and not RAI, fine, but I'm free to disagree :D

Akal Saris
2011-01-24, 09:31 PM
I'd go with the more lenient reading, personally.

Matthew
2011-01-24, 09:49 PM
I would say not without penalty, because it seems to me that the reason adjacent characters cannot be attacked is because they are too close. There needs to be room between the wielder and the target for the weapon to be used effectively. Since you can attack a target when another is in the intervening square, then it would perhaps be reasonable to allow an attack with the appropriate penalty [e.g. −4 AB or +4 AC]. An ogre granting cover to itself seems a bit strange, admittedly, but there you go.

Claudius Maximus
2011-01-24, 10:16 PM
Well if it's tall enough you can just try to go for the upper squares, which have no "cover."

Kerrin
2011-01-24, 10:39 PM
I would say not without penalty, because it seems to me that the reason adjacent characters cannot be attacked is because they are too close. There needs to be room between the wielder and the target for the weapon to be used effectively. Since you can attack a target when another is in the intervening square, then it would perhaps be reasonable to allow an attack with the appropriate penalty [e.g. −4 AB or +4 AC]. An ogre granting cover to itself seems a bit strange, admittedly, but there you go.
I do like this interpretation because it jibes well with reality as well as what makes sense (in my mind) with the mechanics of the game's rules.

Apophis
2011-01-24, 11:17 PM
I would rule that you couldn't attack an adjacent large creature, because all parts of it that you could try to hit are within 5'.
I lay a trap for you.. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RandomNumberGod)
Take a handful of d6s, and set them up so that each on represents 5'. One 5x5x5 cube is you, and the 10x10x10 cube is a large creature. Set them adjacent to each other, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
And another trap... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BoobyTrap)
However, anything bigger than large has parts of the cube that are 10' away, so you could strike them then.

Spoilered pictures in case you don't have dice near you. Why wouldn't you have dice near you?


http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0101800x600.jpg
Here you can see that all parts of the creature are within 5'.
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0102600x800.jpg
Same here.
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0103800x600.jpg
Now, with a huge creature, you can see parts that are farther than 5' away.
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0105800x600.jpg
So you can hit here...
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0104800x600.jpg
Here...
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0107800x600.jpg
And on these three.

mucco
2011-01-24, 11:26 PM
I'd go with a 5' step back... :smalleek:

I believe you could not attack it, besides. Think about a Gelatinous Cube... no way you're going to stab him with your polearm if you don't step back.

dextercorvia
2011-01-24, 11:31 PM
I would rule that you couldn't attack an adjacent large creature, because all parts of it that you could try to hit are within 5'.
I lay a trap for you.. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RandomNumberGod)
Take a handful of d6s, and set them up so that each on represents 5'. One 5x5x5 cube is you, and the 10x10x10 cube is a large creature. Set them adjacent to each other, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
And another trap... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BoobyTrap)
However, anything bigger than large has parts of the cube that are 10' away, so you could strike them then.

Spoilered pictures in case you don't have dice near you. Why wouldn't you have dice near you?


http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0101800x600.jpg
Here you can see that all parts of the creature are within 5'.
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0102600x800.jpg
Same here.
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0103800x600.jpg
Now, with a huge creature, you can see parts that are farther than 5' away.
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0105800x600.jpg
So you can hit here...
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0104800x600.jpg
Here...
http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0107800x600.jpg
And on these three.

OO
OOX

The squares on a Large creature that are 10' from reach weapon guy.

Apophis
2011-01-24, 11:40 PM
OO
OOX

The squares on a Large creature that are 10' from reach weapon guy.

I can see where you're coming from, but stop thinking of squares, and start thinking about an actual creature. You can't stab at someones chest and hit their back.

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/ApepApophis/GEDC0102600x800.jpg
You are the red die.
You can't hit the die with the "4" because the one with the "2" is in the way.

Volos
2011-01-25, 12:22 AM
This is why if I'm going to bother with a reach weapon I make it a spiked chain. But onto the argument, I can see how it makes sense that you cannot attack a orge who is standing right infront of you with a regular reach weapon. The part of your weapon that attacks is at all times 10ft out from you. If you go to attack the back side of the orge, you end up hitting him with the shaft of your weapon before you can get the blade anywhere near him. Which also explains why spiked chains work so much better. They can wrap around foes and hit them regardless of cover from allies or what have you. And since the entire thing is covered in spikes, you can attack with any piece of it. Unlike the polearm that has alot of useless wood between you and the thing you're trying to strike at.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-25, 01:03 AM
Cover

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the targetís square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the targetís square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isnít adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
...
Soft Cover

Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check.

Big Creatures and Cover

Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you. I'm surprised (and a bit dismayed) that there's a lot of "yes you can"/"no you can't" argument continuing on this topic, and still nobody's checked the actual rules regarding this situation. I'd thought we'd already established, via the Rules Compendium quote, that you indeed can attack squares at reach. Then it's just a matter of determining the consequences, which are that if you can only pick non-adjacent squares you can reach, those adjacent squares provide soft cover (+4 to AC).

Yes, you can attack over/around/through adjacent creature squares to get at squares you can reach.
Those adjacent creature squares provide the attackable parts of your enemy with soft cover, boosting its AC by +4 against your attacks.
(Creatures which completely fill their spaces provide hard rather than soft cover. You'll need to step back to attack a gelatinous cube with a reach weapon.)

kyoryu
2011-01-25, 01:33 AM
I'm surprised (and a bit dismayed) that there's a lot of "yes you can"/"no you can't" argument continuing on this topic, and still nobody's checked the actual rules regarding this situation. I'd thought we'd already established, via the Rules Compendium quote, that you indeed can attack squares at reach. Then it's just a matter of determining the consequences, which are that if you can only pick non-adjacent squares you can reach, those adjacent squares provide soft cover (+4 to AC).

Yes, you can attack over/around/through adjacent creature squares to get at squares you can reach.
Those adjacent creature squares provide the attackable parts of your enemy with soft cover, boosting its AC by +4 against your attacks.
(Creatures which completely fill their spaces provide hard rather than soft cover. You'll need to step back to attack a gelatinous cube with a reach weapon.)

Rules Compendium and d20srd.org both agree that you cannot attack an adjacent creature. That seems pretty clear. It does not say adjacent *square*, but adjacent *creature*.

If it said that you cannot attack an adjacent *square* I'd agree with you. As it stands, I don't :)

Apophis
2011-01-25, 01:39 AM
Curmudgeon, I don't see how you got that a large creature can provide cover for itself. If there is an ogre in front of me, and I want to stab it in the spine with my spear, the only way to get my spear there is through its stomach, and I am too close to actually hit it in the stomach, there is no way I can stab the ogre in its spine.

MeeposFire
2011-01-25, 01:55 AM
"A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that arenít adjacent to him or her". 3.5 SRD.

So in order to attack the ogre you must not be adjacent to the ogre. If the ogre is adjacent to you it is unattackable. Notice it does not say you cannot attack an adjacent square it says adjacent creature which is a big difference. In the example the ogre is adacent so I cannot attack it. You better back up.

Also you can attack the target behind the other human. The 2nd human just gets a cover bonus on the attack. This is in fact one of the big reasons to wield reach weapons.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-25, 02:00 AM
Curmudgeon, I don't see how you got that a large creature can provide cover for itself. If there is an ogre in front of me, and I want to stab it in the spine with my spear, the only way to get my spear there is through its stomach, and I am too close to actually hit it in the stomach, there is no way I can stab the ogre in its spine.
You're not visualizing the D&D squares here. An Ogre doesn't fill up its 10'x10'x10' volume any more than a Human fills up its 5'x5'x5' volume (actually less). Most of the space "occupied" by a creature is actually empty. (Space-filling creatures like gelatinous cubes are an exception.) If the Ogre's stomach is within 5' of you then so is its spine. Ogres are only about 50% bigger than Humans in each dimension, which would increase the distance from stomach to spine by no more than an inch or two.

Creatures in D&D don't have facing, which means they're shifting back and forth, and turning within the space to check about them in all directions. While the space is mostly air, some parts of the body may be within 5' of you and some parts 5'-10' away. It's getting through the intervening space by knocking an arm aside (or whatever) as you strike at your target that boosts the Ogre's AC for that attack.

Apophis
2011-01-25, 02:22 AM
You're not visualizing the D&D squares here. An Ogre doesn't fill up its 10'x10'x10' volume any more than a Human fills up its 5'x5'x5' volume (actually less). Most of the space "occupied" by a creature is actually empty. (Space-filling creatures like gelatinous cubes are an exception.) If the Ogre's stomach is within 5' of you then so is its spine. Ogres are only about 50% bigger than Humans in each dimension, which would increase the distance from stomach to spine by no more than an inch or two.

Creatures in D&D don't have facing, which means they're shifting back and forth, and turning within the space to check about them in all directions. While the space is mostly air, some parts of the body may be within 5' of you and some parts 5'-10' away. It's getting through the intervening space by knocking an arm aside (or whatever) as you strike at your target that boosts the Ogre's AC for that attack.

Ok, I understand what you're saying now. I don't agree with it, but it does make sense.

And to the OP: As a DM, I would rule that, even though the rulebooks say that a reach weapon can't be used to attack an adjacent creature, you could attack an adjacent creature that is huge or larger.

RS14
2011-01-25, 02:58 AM
"A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that arenít adjacent to him or her". 3.5 SRD.

So in order to attack the ogre you must not be adjacent to the ogre. If the ogre is adjacent to you it is unattackable. Notice it does not say you cannot attack an adjacent square it says adjacent creature which is a big difference. In the example the ogre is adacent so I cannot attack it. You better back up.

I think you are misreading this. A reach weapon allows you to attack (some) targets that are not adjacent to you. This does not necessarily preclude the ability to attack adjacent targets.

The ability to attack adjacent creatures is restricted only by the clause that "a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. 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."

MeeposFire
2011-01-25, 03:18 AM
I think you are misreading the actual rules. It says this

"A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that arenít adjacent to him or her"

"Most reach weapons double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square"

"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."

Notice it always says you cannot attack an adjacent foe. In the entire section it does not list a caveat to that rule. Right now I am only seeing people adding in stuff because it should work that way because of how they see reality not by what is written in the rules. the rules I found are quite clear that you cannot attack adjacent creatures period. If you can find a written rule saying something to the effect of "you may attack an adjacent creature as long as one square it occupies is not adjacent to you" you will change my mind. Notice though it will have to be explicit that it over rules the "can not attack adjacent target rule".

EDIT: Notice that weapons like spiked chains say you can attack an adjacent foe not adjacent square or similar.

RS14
2011-01-25, 05:14 AM
"Most reach weapons double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square"

...

Notice it always says you cannot attack an adjacent foe.


It says you cannot attack a creature "in" an adjacent square. This unambiguously prohibits attacking medium or smaller creatures in the adjacent square. It is not clear from the rules if the creature must be wholly contained within the square to be "in," or if it is sufficient for it to be partially within, and thus it is not clear whether this applies to large and larger creatures.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-25, 05:39 AM
Rules Compendium and d20srd.org both agree that you cannot attack an adjacent creature. That seems pretty clear. It does not say adjacent *square*, but adjacent *creature*.
It actually doesn't say that.
Most reach double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. You can't attack a creature in an adjacent square with a reach weapon. That's established. You can, however, attack a creature (who happens to occupy an adjacent square) in a non-adjacent square. That's permitted by the general rules, unless there's a specific rule expressly forbidding this.

I haven't found any such exception in the RAW.

LordBlades
2011-01-25, 06:03 AM
It actually doesn't say that. You can't attack a creature in an adjacent square with a reach weapon. That's established. You can, however, attack a creature (who happens to occupy an adjacent square) in a non-adjacent square. That's permitted by the general rules, unless there's a specific rule expressly forbidding this.

I haven't found any such exception in the RAW.

I think that by RAI 'creature in an adiacent square' referrs to 'creature that occupies only an adiacent square'.

By RAW I fully agree to your interpretation.

2xMachina
2011-01-25, 07:43 AM
+1 to Curmudgeon's reading.

dextercorvia
2011-01-25, 09:09 AM
Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.

I pulled this out of Curmudgeon's quote above. Notice that it doesn't say you have to attack the square that you choose. A large creature doesn't provide itself cover from reach weapons. I can choose any square the creature occupies to check cover, and I can attack any square 10' away that the creature occupies.

Chen
2011-01-25, 10:45 AM
It actually doesn't say that. You can't attack a creature in an adjacent square with a reach weapon. That's established. You can, however, attack a creature (who happens to occupy an adjacent square) in a non-adjacent square. That's permitted by the general rules, unless there's a specific rule expressly forbidding this.

I haven't found any such exception in the RAW.

The problem is the quote


Most reach double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.

contradicts itself when you get into talking about creatures that can occupy both a square adjacent and 10ft from you.

The rule gives 2 conditions on attacking with a reach weapon:

1) You can attack a creature 10 ft away from you
2) You cannot attack a creature adjacent to you

However, as we're seeing these two conditions are not mutually exclusive. The problem is, the actions they allow ARE mutually exclusive (you cannot both attack and not attack something at the same time).

Personally I'd rule that you could attack the far square unless it was something like a gelatinous cube which actually occupies the full space its in. In that latter case I'd rule you could not make the attack.

Ashiel
2011-01-25, 12:24 PM
I agree with Curmudgeon. As far as I'm reading it, you can attack spaces that aren't adjacent to you; and you could therefor attack large creatures who are taking up too much space. Would you say that an ogre (large) who was 1/2 inside the minimum range of a giant's (huge) reach with a glaive would be immune to the giant's strike?

I think not.

2xMachina
2011-01-25, 01:01 PM
You can also read 'in' as being fully in the adjacent square, and being partially there is not 'in' it.

kyoryu
2011-01-25, 04:26 PM
You can also read 'in' as being fully in the adjacent square, and being partially there is not 'in' it.

I read it as:

1) you can attack a creature in a square 10' away, but (meaning this clause is an exception)
2) not if the creature is adjacent to you

Meaning that the second clause trumps the first one. "You can go to the party, but if you haven't done your homework, you can't".

Lapak
2011-01-25, 04:31 PM
I'm actually pretty well persuaded by the 'yes, but the fact that it's crowding you lets it provide cover to itself' argument.

The ogre's right arm and leg are right in my face, too close to hit with the business end of my poleaxe. But his head is just the right distance away. The fact that his arm is right in my face means I'm going to have a hard time swinging the blade into his face, but it's possible to do it. I like it.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not arguing RAW here. I'm just saying that I like this ruling and will be adopting it if the issue arises.

MeeposFire
2011-01-25, 04:32 PM
It says you cannot attack a creature in an adjacent square. Just because you attack a square that is not adjacent to you does not change the fact the ogre is still in an adjacent square and thus is not a legal target. You have not shown anything that removes the requirement that says you cannot attack a creature that is adjacent to you. In this example the ogre is explicitly adjacent to you and thus is not a legal target even if he also takes up non-adjacent squares at the same time.

JaronK
2011-01-25, 05:08 PM
There might not be any trumping... "in" may refer to where you can attack the creature, not where the creature is. Thus "you may not attack a creature in an adjacent square" would mean "the place you may attack a creature may not be in an adjacent square." As such, if a creature is in squares that are adjacent, but also squares that are not (which is normal for large creatures next to medium ones), you can't attack the squares next to you but you can attack the ones further away just fine and still hit the creature. Note that this means the attacks may have to deal with cover from the creature itself, as you're attacking through an occupied square... consider this just a situation of the weapon being inappropriate for the range.

Or you could just wear armor spikes and be done with it.

JaronK

dextercorvia
2011-01-25, 05:15 PM
Or you could just wear armor spikes and be done with it.


Most reach double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.

Note that the conservative reading here may prohibit a character wielding a reach weapon from attacking any creature adjacent to him even with his armor spikes /sillyness

JaronK
2011-01-25, 05:18 PM
That only does anything while "wielding" a weapon, so I suppose you could just let go of your pole arm with one hand and hold it in the other (which isn't enough to "wield" it) and punch it with your armor spikes. Then grab the weapon again. Both free actions. Hey, if the DM is going for rules technicalities like that, you might as well.

JaronK

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-25, 05:59 PM
If you are aware that an enemy is within a square, but cannot see them, you can choose to attack said square and you have to hit their AC and overcome the miss chance to hit them.

I can choose to attack the square that I am allowed to, I suffer a +4 cover bonus for a creature occupying a square between me and the one I attack, and I have no miss chance because he has no concealment.

Even if the rule was saying you cannot target him, the ability to attack a chosen square would overcome that.

EDIT: Disregard cover, I didn't read the soft cover rules thoroughly. You just pick the square you are attacking to determine cover.

No brains
2011-01-25, 07:49 PM
Based on the rules for cover involving large creatures, since I can choose any square a large creature occupies to detemine cover, I can always coose a big creature's back squares and always have cover from big creatures.

This is correct?

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-25, 08:03 PM
No, they get to pick, not you.

dextercorvia
2011-01-25, 08:20 PM
No, they get to pick, not you.

They get to pick when they are attacking, and you get to pick when you are attacking. Curmudgeon has the quote earlier in the thread.

tyckspoon
2011-01-25, 09:09 PM
They get to pick when they are attacking, and you get to pick when they are attacking. Curmudgeon has the quote earlier in the thread.

You.. uh.. probably should edit this to whatever you meant to say, because what you did say makes no sense.

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-25, 09:11 PM
Attacker chooses.

dextercorvia
2011-01-25, 09:14 PM
You.. uh.. probably should edit this to whatever you meant to say, because what you did say makes no sense.

Thanks. Fixed.

Loki Eremes
2011-01-25, 09:24 PM
OMG almost 60 answers for this xD

i think its simple,
with a reach weapon you cant attack an adjacent square, but you CAN attack the next one.

Y: You
X: adjacent squares
O: non attackable Ogre squares
O: attackable Orge squares


XXX => XXX
XYX => XYOO
XXX => XXOO


Ogre occupies any square where it can be attacked? YES
so
May you attack it? YES



Now about some real but stupid facts.

Real rules as Meeposfire said, states that "you cant attack an adjacent creature", but i think the dont tought about a larger creature than medium when creating this.

Imagine yourself standing in front of a dragon. You have a spear. It means you cant attack something between you and the blade, but its a Big BIG dragon. Only his nails occupies that place you cant attack, when his legs and other parts of his body are at your blade's reach.
Being this said, i think "you can attack a creature if any of the squares she occupies are between your reach" is pretty acceptable.


Cover is another story. i dont think it applies tough, 'cause even if the Ogren "tries to dodge" his body will continue to occupy those 4 squares.

Knaight
2011-01-25, 09:48 PM
Real rules as Meeposfire said, states that "you cant attack an adjacent creature", but i think the dont tought about a larger creature than medium when creating this.

This relates only to the RAI interpretation. RAW is largely what is being contested, look at how many people state that they, as a GM, would allow it.

Loki Eremes
2011-01-25, 10:03 PM
This relates only to the RAI interpretation. RAW is largely what is being contested, look at how many people state that they, as a GM, would allow it.


Then is even more simple.
You cant attack as the Ogre is adjacent to you.

I want to think this thread went as far as this because of RAI,
cause if the discussion is about RAW it stops there.


"A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that arenít adjacent to him or her."


-Is the Ogre adjacent to you? yes.
-Can you attack considering this? no.

Knaight
2011-01-25, 10:07 PM
"Most reach double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. "

A creature in an adjacent square is ambiguous. On the one hand, being partially in something can be seen as being in it. On the other hand, to say something is in a space is to say that something is entirely in a space. Given that this is rules text, and your quote is description, ambiguity arises.

Loki Eremes
2011-01-25, 10:15 PM
"Most reach double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. "

A creature in an adjacent square is ambiguous. On the one hand, being partially in something can be seen as being in it. On the other hand, to say something is in a space is to say that something is entirely in a space. Given that this is rules text, and your quote is description, ambiguity arises.


And this my friend is RAI :smallbiggrin:

Knaight
2011-01-25, 11:45 PM
And this my friend is RAI :smallbiggrin:

Wrong. Its RAW because there is no clear definition of in a square presented in the text. The rules are written, initially, in English, so ambiguity in English can turn into ambiguity in RAW. There is also ambiguity in RAI, which leads to the obvious conclusion. Reach weapons weren't tested very much. After all, classically, heroes have swords. Spears are for mooks.

Loki Eremes
2011-01-26, 12:58 AM
Wrong. Its RAW because there is no clear definition of in a square presented in the text. The rules are written, initially, in English, so ambiguity in English can turn into ambiguity in RAW. There is also ambiguity in RAI, which leads to the obvious conclusion. Reach weapons weren't tested very much. After all, classically, heroes have swords. Spears are for mooks.


ambiguity leads to misinterpretation

Misinterpretation leads to RAI



And i think there is a clear definition: anything thats adjacent cant be attacked.

X= empty square
Y= you
G= gargantuan mob.

XGGGG
YGGGG
XGGGG
XGGGG

Both you and the gargantuan monster are adjacent (def: Next to) to each other right?

in that case, as RAW, you CANT attack that Gargantuan creature because it is ADJACENT to you, an it will be the same for him if he builds a reach weapon.

Knaight
2011-01-26, 01:32 AM
ambiguity leads to misinterpretation

Misinterpretation leads to RAI

Ambiguity removes the possibility of perfect interpretation. That means one must be picked with RAI being a natural method of doing so. Common sense is another such method.

Thespianus
2011-01-26, 01:53 AM
I would say not without penalty, because it seems to me that the reason adjacent characters cannot be attacked is because they are too close.
In that case, character X couldn't attack monsters A and C with a reach weapon in this scenario either, since B is "too close":

A

BX

C

And that seems just wrong.

absolmorph
2011-01-26, 02:08 AM
You can attack an adjacent creature that takes up multiple squares just fine.
Y'know how you target a square when you can't see the enemy that may be in the square?
That's how you attack them, using RAW. You target the squares that are valid and roll your attack.

SiuiS
2011-01-26, 05:38 AM
The problem is that there's something right in your face, preventing the polearm from being used effectively.

This is inconsistent with actually using a polearm, unless the polearm is of the 9-10+ foot long variety.
Remember, there is concievably an 8 foot gap between two adjacent medium creatures. If the end space of the creature is an extra five feet away, it's not too hard to grab further up the haft, angle to a back corner, lunge and overhand axe-swing (or pool-cue thrust if possible) to the furhest back exposed area. He's to close and the haft bounces up of of something instead of the baled striking true? That is a miss on the attack roll.
One of the standard postures for short pole weapons is the hanging guard, which extends an 8 foot long weapon about 3-4 feet in front of you. Another is holding the edge down and back behind you. Thrid is the at the chest and ready to stab standard. I can hit a guy 4-5 feet behind you from one of those postures with as much accuracy as I could if you weren't intervening. That's not very accurate mind, but that reflects more my low str/BaB than anything else.

I too remember something about targeting squares, if that helps any.

LordBlades
2011-01-26, 06:33 AM
in that case, as RAW, you CANT attack that Gargantuan creature because it is ADJACENT to you, an it will be the same for him if he builds a reach weapon.


Where in RAW related to reach weapons does it say 'adiacent creature' and not 'creature in an adjacent square', which is pretty ambiguous in what it means.

gkathellar
2011-01-26, 06:35 AM
This is inconsistent with actually using a polearm, unless the polearm is of the 9-10+ foot long variety.

This. Trying to adjudicate this debate based on anything centered in reality will fail, because in reality polearms are extraordinarily versatile and can be used at a variety of distances without significant difficulty.

I would go with Curmudgeon's explanation, because the rules do support it, and if you waste time insisting one set of combat rules don't make sense, then you have to waste time insisting all of them don't make sense. (And they don't.)

Matthew
2011-01-26, 07:54 AM
In that case, character X couldn't attack monsters A and C with a reach weapon in this scenario either, since B is "too close":

A

BX

C

And that seems just wrong.

Technically, "B" would be hindering "X" attacking "A" or "C", but D&D is only selective in what it simulates, so it is not of concern. Bottom line is that "reach weapons" have some foundation in real world expectations, but only insofar as they contribute something to the game.

AtomicKitKat
2011-01-26, 08:56 AM
I'd say you can't. In the same way that you can't use a Reach weapon in a Grapple(barring Short Haft or something similar).

Chen
2011-01-26, 09:22 AM
"Most reach double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. "

Now a creature can be both adjacent and it can occupy a square 10 feet away. The only wiggle room I can see in interpreting this quote is that it states you can "attack a creature 10 feet away". This is the only vague part. Does this mean all of the creature has to be 10 feet away? Or that each part of the creature has to be at least 10 feet away? Or just part of it?

If you read it as just part of the creature has to be 10 feet away, then the rule is inconsistent with itself when talking about large creatures and cannot be applied at all.

If you read it that the whole creature has to be 10 feet away it means this rule doesn't apply at all to creatures that occupy a larger space.

If you read it as all of the creature's squares have to be at least 10 feet away it does work, though it disallows attacking a large creature that is adjacent to you.

Knaight
2011-01-26, 09:34 AM
This. Trying to adjudicate this debate based on anything centered in reality will fail, because in reality polearms are extraordinarily versatile and can be used at a variety of distances without significant difficulty.

Pretty much. They were woefully underestimated by 3e designers. Kind of like shields really.

No brains
2011-01-26, 01:30 PM
I apologise for my earlier post, I wrote it in haste and I forgot the pronouns in the cover-choosing scenario.

The final interpretation I am going to use is that you can attack a creature who has part of itself 10 feet away from a person who has a reach weapon. Although the creature is adjacent, RAW permits attacking into squares to try to hit a creature. When a creature grants itself cover, that just opens up too big a can of worms to think about, so I'm leaning far away from a penalty.

Curmudgeon also showed the RAW as I asked, so that helped me to make up my mind. I take it he's the real giant in these playgrounds, huh?

Anyway, thanks for all your help. When I find another stick wicket, I'll give you a call for some pliers.:smallsmile:

P.S. Everyone instantly assumes a longspear as a reach weapon when considering the awkward aspect, but what about something that can sweep, like a glaive?

SiuiS
2011-01-26, 11:32 PM
I was specifically thinking of the one that has a large axe-ish blade that points beyodthe shaft enough to stab with. Sadly, I can't remember polearm names for the life of me.

ryzouken
2011-01-27, 12:57 AM
I was specifically thinking of the one that has a large axe-ish blade that points beyodthe shaft enough to stab with. Sadly, I can't remember polearm names for the life of me.

Pretty sure that's the stabbyslashypokey. Not to be confused with the slashysweepy or the pokeystabby. There's also the smashypokeystabby, the slashysmashy, and the slashysweepystabby. Technically there's a slashystabbypokeysmashysweepyslappysmacky, but that's OP and banned in most circles.


Glaive/Glaive-Guisarme?