Feat for using reach weapon up close?

[0-hr]

I use a glaive and would like to be able to strike people adjacent to me as well. Are there any feats out there that allow this?

If not, would it be balanced to make a custom feat to accomplish this (allow a reach weapon to be used on adjacent targets ala the spiked chain)?

 

[Vurt]

I haven't seen any feats in any of the official books to do this.

However, even without a feat you should be able to use the shaft of the glaive as an improvised weapon, at a -4 penalty to hit as per the SRD, and doing quarterstaff damage. It probably wouldn't be too far a stretch to get away with removing the penalty by taking an extra weapon proficiency specific to the particular weapon (i.e. martial weapon proficiency (glaive) or something similar), but, as always, check with the DM.

Alternately, you could theoretically "choke up" on the glaive, but would probably lose the benefits of reach when you do so. Plus, I would expect that reducing the leverage on the shaft would correspondingly reduce damage as well.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[Orichin]

reach weapons for the most part are smaller weapons on a stick. A halberd, voulge, and glaive are all axes on a 6-foot stick. partisans, glaives (depending on blade style), and pikes are all more or less daggers or shortswords on a stick. The increased damage, like vurt said, comes from the weight of the pole adding extra momentum to the impact. Choking up or neglecting to use the pole are basically the same thing: using a smaller, normal weapon, with a big cumbersome stick on the end of the handle. Want a glaive you can use in close quarters? get a shortsword.

 

[hong]

I use a glaive and would like to be able to strike people adjacent to me as well. Are there any feats out there that allow this?

If not, would it be balanced to make a custom feat to accomplish this (allow a reach weapon to be used on adjacent targets ala the spiked chain)?

Too many feats make characters stupid (a riff on "too many skills make characters stupid"). Choking up on a shaft* is something anyone should be able to do, although some might be able to do it better than others. Make it an option in combat (like fighting defensively) to hit someone adjacent with a reach weapon at a -4 penalty, and if you still want a feat, have it remove or reduce the penalty.



* IYKWIMAITYD

 

[Grayhawk]

If what you're trying to do needs DM approval, it might help to show him the following text, taken from WotC's latest 'Rules of the Game' column:

'Most reach weapons have fairly sturdy shafts, however, and there's no reason why you couldn't use the shaft to clobber someone. Likewise, there's no reason why you couldn't shorten your grip on the weapon so that the business end doesn't stick out so far. To represent these possibilities, you can allow a character to use a reach weapon to attack foes within his natural reach, but with a -4 penalty on attack and damage rolls. The penalties simulate all the difficulties the character has when employing the weapon in this fashion, such as striking with the shaft or messing up the weapon's usual leverage and balance.'

You can find it here, near the bottom of the page. (But no mention of feats to offset the penalties.)

 

[0-hr]

Wow, thanks - that's just what I needed (and it even makes sense).

 

[Hypersmurf]

If what you're trying to do needs DM approval, it might help to show him the following text, taken from WotC's latest 'Rules of the Game' column:

Well, to show him just that text would be a little devious.

To be fair, you should note that it appears under the heading of "A Pair of Completely Unofficial Rules"...

-Hyp.

 

[Grayhawk]

Well, to show him just that text would be a little devious.

To be fair, you should note that it appears under the heading of "A Pair of Completely Unofficial Rules"...

You say 'devious' like it's a bad thing?

You're right of course. When I said 'show him the following text', I didn't really mean that he should just show him my post, as I expect most DM's are suspicious of random claims on messageboards and will want to check out the source for themselves (I know I would). Which is why I conveniently provided a link