Post/Author/DateTime	Post
seng3 08-08-05, 01:13 PM	Hi, anyone owns or use a reach weapon in real life? Anyone trained in one? Or just know about it? I mean any of those polearms that can strike opponent 10 ft away.... Can it be use when opponent is near? Is it just like in the game systm where you have to move back ? that is, reach weapon but do not threathen the first 5ft?
Tony Vargas 08-08-05, 01:22 PM	I don't have any RL experience with trying to kill someone with a spear. I do remember seeing an SCA demo that neatly illustrated the basic concept that's modeled in D&D. The idea of the demo was to show how spearmen could fight from the second rank, but the attacker got lucky and took out the front rank shield-man quickly and closed on the spearman before he could 'choke up' on the weapon. IRL, you can use a spear, even a long one, on someone standing relatively close to you, by changing your grip on the weapon, but it's not something you can do instantly. Also, IRL, having a longer weapon is a real advantage, since you have a chance to hit the other guy before he gets close enough to hit you. Very simple ideas, very complex IRL. D&D abstracts it down to the rules on reach, threatened areas and AoOs. It's not a highly realistic modeling, but it does get the basic idea across - that a reach advantage is meaningful, but that advantage can be reversed when someone gets too close, too fast.
Sluagh 08-08-05, 01:43 PM	In real life, using a 10' weapon close up us quite difficult. Even with changing your grip to allow you to strike at a close foe, the proceedings are difficult as the weapon is no longer balanced properly. The rules given for using them in D&D are ok, but to make it more realistic, I would think that something like an AC penalty wouldn't be uncalled for when flighting enemies within 5' with most reach weapons, due to the offbalance, awkward use. A few reach weapons are different, but most of them are inappropriate for close combat. Generally a fighter using a long weapon will drop that weapon for a smaller one as combat gets close.
tarkin 08-08-05, 02:16 PM	It should also be noted that in real life a lot of weapons would be considered to have 0 reach. Knives, daggers, armor spikes, spiked gauntlets, etc. all are pretty much a 0 reach weapon. That is, someone with a sword can hit you before you can hit them and in order to make use of them use must get up close and personal generally inside the range of the sword so the sword has a dificult time attacking you.
Inigo Carmine 08-08-05, 02:23 PM	That is, someone with a sword can hit you before you can hit them and in order to make use of them use must get up close and personal generally inside the range of the sword so the sword has a dificult time attacking you. Aka, grappling. For how simple D20 rules are, I think they are an exceptional model for how things really work. Things could be more realistic certainly, but D&D combats are already more than long enough.
Sluagh 08-08-05, 02:25 PM	Quite right. The idea is to move past the range a weapon is effective in and go to town. Unless the opponent ditches the weapon, or moves enough, they're gonna be schooled. That or stay out of range.
Rulebook 08-08-05, 04:14 PM	Ingo, he's not talking about grappling. what he's talking about there is no in-game mechanic for. Hes saying "My arm plus my dagger, is nowhere near as long as his arms plus his bigass sword... wtf am i gonna do if i cant close in?"
DragonWatcher 08-08-05, 04:33 PM	I would say that using a long weapon against a close opponent IRL would be difficult enough to justify a Feat in game. Let me just point out that the #1 cause of table-side frustration is people trying to over-rationalize or use RL experience to justify changes to the rules. While the rules need to be at least semi-realistic, trying to "add more realism" just winds up breaking the balance of the game (usually in ways that are never forseen). Trust me on this, I've learned my lesson the hard way many times over. My suggestion is when you see a rule that you don't think is realistic, ask yourself: "Is there a balance reason for things to be this way?" I think that if you think about it, 99% of the time, you will find that there is. At that point, just roll the dice and have fun. The reason that D&D makes reach weapons useless at 5' is strictly for balancing them with other weapons. If every reach weapon could be used to also attack adjacent opponents, there would be no mechanical reason to use any other weapon. Every character would carry a longspear, and every opponent that charged them would get an attack of opportunity made when they tried to move closer than 10' away. The fact that you cannot use a reach weapon to attack an adjacent opponent makes you think more strategically in the game, and makes different weapons valuable in their own right.
woodwalker 08-08-05, 05:35 PM	i have no real experience with reach weapons (though i hope to remide hat situation), but i know that historically, a reach weapon has a counter-balance at the end. or at least the greeks had them on thier pikes for the phalanxes.
woodwalker 08-08-05, 05:36 PM	i have no real experience with reach weapons (though i hope to remady that situation), but i know that historically, a reach weapon has a counter-balance at the end. or at least the greeks had them on thier pikes for the phalanxes.
Kayli 08-08-05, 06:13 PM	Well, theres various poisons and Toxins that will work. Ohh you mean Reach :D i have no real experience with reach weapons (though i hope to remady that situation), but i know that historically, a reach weapon has a counter-balance at the end. or at least the greeks had them on thier pikes for the phalanxes. You Mean Macedonins. The Greeks used Hoplites who were men with Spears and Large Shields. And if they could aford it Bronze Breast Plate. The Phalanxe with Pikes were Macedonins, and it was a formation developed by Alexander the Greats Father, Phillip I think his name was. This would be at the end of the great Greek Period, though meny people called them greeks becuase the Maceonians liked to pretend that they were Greek, and much of Alexanders army was conscripted from greeks trained in the new Phalanxe modle.
seng3 08-08-05, 10:06 PM	Thanks for all the insights! :) I just wanna have a better idea of Reach weapons in RL to see if any feats can be used to make reach weapon effective at 5', with or without penalty. Looks like the best feat so far is IUS or simply spike armor(I don't like spike armor)... ;) I simply don't like spike chain and I think if there is such a weapon in RL, it would not be that effective anyway...
jameswilliamogle 08-08-05, 11:11 PM	what if you made a spear with spiked handholds on it that protected your hands? or why not wear spiked gauntlets while weilding a reach weapon? someone gets w/in 5' for an AoO, you spear them once, then w/ combat reflexes you punch them with your off-hand again, then move back 10' and repeat (this is essentially close in quality to using a spiked chain, i'd think). also, why not make a spear a "triple" weapon - ie, put the spikes on it as above, keep the normal head on the one end, and on the other put a shepherd's hook to make range trip attacks. seems like it could work pretty well...
Trixxie 08-09-05, 01:24 AM	The Ranseur in the game sounds like somthing you describe. Bonus to trip. In my experience in the real world almost anything over 6ft in lenth would likely be able to provide 'reach' if you thrust with it and hold towards the base. I think that Doungeon mag published somthing on pole arms recently. Ther was a feat to extend the range on any pole arm by 5ft as a full round action... I don't remember if there was a feat to shorten the grip... might have been at a -2 to hit if there was though. Historicaly the Pike was one of the longer weapons out there...13 - 16ft DND terms ,I thinks Combat and Tactics had some info in its use. reach of 15!!!! best thing for pole arms in the game though.... Spring attack!!!
Trixxie 08-09-05, 01:31 AM	Also Check out something the Japanese call a "BISZENTO" I dont think thats how you spell it... Its pronounced "Bye Zen Toe" if that helps
ishnid 08-09-05, 03:32 AM	I ain't trying to flame or get anyone mad BUT... the D20 combat system is not in any way representitive of real combat. Don't get me wrong I like DND. However combat in DND only on the most abstract level like actual weapon combat. I will comment on the fact that there are weapons when sized for a taller person could strike 10' away. Staffs and spears can be used this far away. One the other hand in my experience using weapons I have never seen anyone use a pole arm with both handes at the far end of the weapon, although I have never seen or used a weapon as part of a formation. Realism in DND would require hundreds of rolls and statistic so precise you would need a computer. I guess what I am trying to say is this. Don't let realism pollute your DND, the rules are there to balance the field so everyone has fun. If you start changing things to be realistic pretty soon you realize every weapon should be lethal (why the heck does a razor sharp dagger do a D4?) Any hit with a weapon should end combat (Just ask anyone who does Kendo) Plate mail should be useless against a crossbow. Anyone with a quaterstaff would break it on any hard armor etc. etc. P.S. If you don't agree with me, FANTASTIC. Don't let some knucklehead on these boards ruin your fun.
seng3 08-09-05, 04:20 AM	I ain't trying to flame or get anyone mad BUT... the D20 combat system is not in any way representitive of real combat. Don't get me wrong I like DND. However combat in DND only on the most abstract level like actual weapon combat. I will comment on the fact that there are weapons when sized for a taller person could strike 10' away. Staffs and spears can be used this far away. One the other hand in my experience using weapons I have never seen anyone use a pole arm with both handes at the far end of the weapon, although I have never seen or used a weapon as part of a formation. Realism in DND would require hundreds of rolls and statistic so precise you would need a computer. I guess what I am trying to say is this. Don't let realism pollute your DND, the rules are there to balance the field so everyone has fun. If you start changing things to be realistic pretty soon you realize every weapon should be lethal (why the heck does a razor sharp dagger do a D4?) Any hit with a weapon should end combat (Just ask anyone who does Kendo) Plate mail should be useless against a crossbow. Anyone with a quaterstaff would break it on any hard armor etc. etc. P.S. If you don't agree with me, FANTASTIC. Don't let some knucklehead on these boards ruin your fun. To put it simply, I know that RL and DnD combat is different. But current DnD rules are conceptualise from RL and imagination. I start this thread because I am thinking if there should be a feat to allow 10' only reach weapon to hit 5' squares. jameswilliamogle: What you suggest are great but you are basically making a new weapon modified from the simple spear. And with its complicated design, it would most likely an new exotic weapon. Trixxie: Thanks for your input. In 3e, pike basically became the 2h spear or is totally gone. It should by right be a reach 15' only or a 10' to 15' reach weapon. Thanks for all the inputs, you all have been very helpful! :)
roetroc 08-09-05, 05:23 AM	In the past I have trained to use a pike at 17ft long, and a two handed spear at 2.4 m (I have no idea how long that is in play money). The pike is essentially useless once you are beyond the point and only really effective on masse. As 17th C pikes did not have large counterbalancing weights they relied very much on the weilder to hold them in place and shortening your grip makes them useless. This is why, I imagine, a pikeman was still required to have a hanger (basically a slashing shortsword), and when charging to horse, would trap the butt under one foot, hold it up with the left hand and draw their hanger. Using a spear two handed is different. As it isn't so long and it usable at this length but it is much more difficult. As odd bonus it is better for wrenching shields out of the way when you shorten your grip and then you can jab straight into the body. Using it this way is no where near as easy as when you have some distance, and you really have to be on the offensive. If someone has a go at you and you have to defend yourself, you really have very little chance of fighting very well. This is why quite a few spearmen I know, carry a secondary weapon like a saex(big knife) or an axe. They hold the spear in one hand to deflect blows and draw the secondary weapon to attack. The spear is not as easy to use as a shield but can be very effective. In any case, using a spear from the second rank is much preferable as you don't get hit and you can also attack people two or three places away from directly in front of you. BTW If you are left-handed (as I am when using a spear) you have lovely field day against a right-handed person as they frequently open themselves up for a fraction of a second as they strike, or if you work with a team mate, as your team make strikes at them and they move to intercept the blow or if they just push the edge of their shield with their weapon. I'm not saying my experiences are the be all and end all, just my experiences.
seng3 08-09-05, 06:43 AM	In the past I have trained to use a pike at 17ft long, and a two handed spear at 2.4 m (I have no idea how long that is in play money). The pike is essentially useless once you are beyond the point and only really effective on masse. As 17th C pikes did not have large counterbalancing weights they relied very much on the weilder to hold them in place and shortening your grip makes them useless. This is why, I imagine, a pikeman was still required to have a hanger (basically a slashing shortsword), and when charging to horse, would trap the butt under one foot, hold it up with the left hand and draw their hanger. Using a spear two handed is different. As it isn't so long and it usable at this length but it is much more difficult. As odd bonus it is better for wrenching shields out of the way when you shorten your grip and then you can jab straight into the body. Using it this way is no where near as easy as when you have some distance, and you really have to be on the offensive. If someone has a go at you and you have to defend yourself, you really have very little chance of fighting very well. This is why quite a few spearmen I know, carry a secondary weapon like a saex(big knife) or an axe. They hold the spear in one hand to deflect blows and draw the secondary weapon to attack. The spear is not as easy to use as a shield but can be very effective. In any case, using a spear from the second rank is much preferable as you don't get hit and you can also attack people two or three places away from directly in front of you. BTW If you are left-handed (as I am when using a spear) you have lovely field day against a right-handed person as they frequently open themselves up for a fraction of a second as they strike, or if you work with a team mate, as your team make strikes at them and they move to intercept the blow or if they just push the edge of their shield with their weapon. I'm not saying my experiences are the be all and end all, just my experiences. Thanks for sharing! :)
Sluagh 08-09-05, 07:21 AM	Also Check out something the Japanese call a "BISZENTO" I dont think thats how you spell it... Its pronounced "Bye Zen Toe" if that helps Are you referring to the katana forged by Bizenn No Kuni Tadakichi?
roetroc 08-09-05, 08:08 AM	I think here we are talking about the bisento. A large sharply curved blade on a pole. It differs from the naginata in that the naginata is a thinner and frequently pointier. ie the Bisento looks like a pregnant naginata. I believe the Chinese used them and then they were introduced to Japan.
jasper 08-09-05, 09:40 AM	I play with a six foot, a seven foot, and seven and half foot pole weapons. I can tag people out to 12 feet while in a shield wall easy. About 10 to 5 if one on one. And when i was having a good day could tag some one who was belly bucking me. It did not matter the opponents weapon system so yes you can defend yourself if someone gets pass your reach weapon. Hey I been pool cued by some one with a great sword who I was belly bucking. He put the point into my eye (or would if the weapon had been real steel and I had no face mask) . I generally allow reach weapons under 10' to be used in close combat but since you want a feat. Close Combat polearm. The feats allows the user to use a reach weapon under ten feet in lenght under five feet with no penalty. This can be used by first level people.
Enterik 08-09-05, 12:23 PM	Hi, anyone owns or use a reach weapon in real life? Anyone trained in one? Or just know about it? I mean any of those polearms that can strike opponent 10 ft away.... Can it be use when opponent is near? Is it just like in the game systm where you have to move back ? that is, reach weapon but do not threathen the first 5ft? Yes, I have trained with the Wing Chun pole. The length varies from 9' to 11' feet, with a shoulder width grip on one end. The style focuses mainly on using the shaft above the grip to deflect and the tip to attack an opponent. In this regard it is similar to [long]spear fighting. There is some ability to attack from between the grip up and the butt when your opponent is up close, but translating into D&D, I'd say there are heavy negative modifiers to ones BAB, even with a feat. :twocents:
Sluagh 08-09-05, 01:07 PM	I think here we are talking about the bisento. A large sharply curved blade on a pole. It differs from the naginata in that the naginata is a thinner and frequently pointier. ie the Bisento looks like a pregnant naginata. I believe the Chinese used them and then they were introduced to Japan. Ah, yes, I've seen the Chinese version. Naginata are one of my favorite long weapons, along with Yari. It's too bad that it's largely considered a "woman's" weapon these days, though I suppose it really doesn't matter... it's still an art I'd gladly persue if it were available in my area.
tarkin 08-09-05, 04:56 PM	Regarding d20 and realism. I have found the game's combat system to be VERY realistic, most problems come about cause people watch too many movies/think they are epic and they are not. Note, while the combat system is pretty realistic, weights and names of weapon are not. In the real world those things were never really standardized. Also, you can easily assume that weight includes accesseries such as the scabbard, sharpening stone, oil, etc. etc. The most common things some people don't realize is: If you are above 0 hitpoints, you have only taken flesh wounds. First real damage comes at 0 hitpoints, and you still have not gotten cut enough to bleed. -1 means you've been cut enough to bleed. As first real damage is 0, arrows do not stick in your body unless you go beneath 1. Yes it is nice to think of yourself as an epic superhero who continues to fight with 20 arrows still stuck in you, but that is epic game, not reasonable lower level. Hitpoints above 0 are less flesh and more luck. It takes only 2 points to take you from 1 (nothing but a flesh wound) to unconcious and dieing. Therefore any "razor sharp" weapon just needs to do on average above 2 hitpoints of lethal damage (as opposed to subdual). This is very realistic, just a little damage can kill a human being. Greater damage potential in a weapon indicate it takes more luck to survive someone trying to use it against you, not more flesh. It is as much about the capacity to truly hit you as the capacity to do real damage. Proficiency with a weapon does not mean you are skilled with it. Basically it means you have picked up the weapon at least once before and tried to teach yourself how to use it. Special tricks such as using the butt end to attack someone up close is something that requires extra training to do. training = feats or a class. You want to strike with the butt of a spear? Take a feat or a class that does that. Wizards etc. do NOT spend off hours practicing with weapons to gain proficiency with weapons. They instead study things in books. If you say "I want to ignore my books and practice with this weapon till I get it right you are saying either "I want to spend a feat to get proficiency with this weapon" or worse "My next level will be a fighter type".
Galdor_Ester 08-09-05, 05:32 PM	I ain't trying to flame or get anyone mad BUT... the D20 combat system is not in any way representitive of real combat. Don't get me wrong I like DND. However combat in DND only on the most abstract level like actual weapon combat. I will comment on the fact that there are weapons when sized for a taller person could strike 10' away. Staffs and spears can be used this far away. One the other hand in my experience using weapons I have never seen anyone use a pole arm with both handes at the far end of the weapon, although I have never seen or used a weapon as part of a formation. Realism in DND would require hundreds of rolls and statistic so precise you would need a computer. I guess what I am trying to say is this. Don't let realism pollute your DND, the rules are there to balance the field so everyone has fun. If you start changing things to be realistic pretty soon you realize every weapon should be lethal (why the heck does a razor sharp dagger do a D4?) Any hit with a weapon should end combat (Just ask anyone who does Kendo) Plate mail should be useless against a crossbow. Anyone with a quaterstaff would break it on any hard armor etc. etc. P.S. If you don't agree with me, FANTASTIC. Don't let some knucklehead on these boards ruin your fun. You are right about polluting the rules. I do have some experience in using large weapons that way and in effect they become two-weapon fighting (much easier though than using 2 weapons actually...) When using a pole-arm you can use it two ranks (fighting over your comrade in front of you. For effectively the 10' reach. However, when fighting without cover you typically use it at the 5' range and use the haft to make bludgeoning attacks (like a staff) and the pointy/slashing/hooking end to deal damage when available. You have to consider it more like a staff with a specialized end. In real life most specialized units of soldiers also used butt-spikes for close in fighting that allowed them to do nasty things like poke holes in someone's foot to disable their ability to close and then backed off to attack. None of that is real usefull in DND though. The weapons have been balanced as was previously stated so that there is a reason to take any of them. Just remember, no matter how "powerful" a human opponent is, one good blow with a weapon is the equivalent of using the instant death rules in DND. It is only when someone could afford and wear full plate mail that you basically had to bludgeon them to death that anything approaching the DND hp rules become realistic. DND combat is and never will be realistic. If you want to change the rules on reach weapons, do so with extreme care and balance it carefully with rules benefiting the non-reach weapons or you will find that nobody every wants to carry a longsword.
tafkamhokie 08-09-05, 10:19 PM	A couple of additional points to add to Tarkin: Regarding hit points...if you want a classic example of what a 20th level fighter looks like, just watch the original Die Hard movie. John McLane took upwards of 150 hit points of damage from all the explosions, bullets, broken glass, punches, head butts, and falls he took in that movie. At the very end was when he was left with 0 hit points...at that point he was staggering around (i.e. only taking partial actions) and a bee sting would probably kill him. But it sure did take a lot of punishment that would have killed a normal person to get him to that point. Remember the explosion from the plastic explosive he strapped to the office chair? That was probably the equivalent of a 10 die fireball, maybe even a 20 die. A 1st level fighter stares at the blast with a bewildered look and is incinerated by the 60 points of fire damage he just took. John McLane recognizes the threat and dives for cover. He still takes 60 points of damage, but when you subtract that from his original total of 150 hit points, he just ended up with some burnt hairs on his arm. The vast majority of your hit points represents your ability to escape what should have been a deadly injury with nothing more than a scratch. Regarding the weights and names of weapons, I give you this counterarguement. Throughout most of history, hand-to-hand combat was a long, drawn out affair. Weapons and armor had to be extremely light or you would wear yourself out so quickly that you would be useless within a matter of minutes. Swinging a 12 lb sword for the duration of a two hour free for all would be impossible. Now lets look at D&D. Most combats last maybe 1 minute, tops. You also have things like dragons and giants that historical man never had to deal with. In that case, you actually want a heavy weapon to give you any hope of actually hurting the monster. Since the threat of an hour-long fight does not exist to an adventurer, the downside of using a very heavy weapon is negligable.
seng3 08-09-05, 10:38 PM	I am simply not a fan of spike chain and thought that polearm should be better... Below are two possible options... (there could be more) but I believe these options would still make non-reach weapon desirable since an additional feat is required... OK. To put to game term... what do you all think of these: option 1 take a feat (Polearm fighting) You may use the butt of a pole arm as a double weapon. The Head of the pole has reach of 10' while the butt has 5' The butt is a d6 blunt weapon and you only use half your str bonus for dmg. You only take the 2wf penalty if you use both end in the same round. The 2wf feat will reduce the 2wf penalty as per other double weapon option 2 Take a feat (Grip shift) Pre: Prof in any Reach weapon. you may change your grip of reach weapon as a move action that does not provoke AOO if you are prof with it. You may do this as part of your normal move.
Null Boundry 08-10-05, 05:05 AM	You Mean Macedonins. The Greeks used Hoplites who were men with Spears and Large Shields. And if they could aford it Bronze Breast Plate. The Phalanxe with Pikes were Macedonins, and it was a formation developed by Alexander the Greats Father, Phillip I think his name was. This would be at the end of the great Greek Period, though meny people called them greeks becuase the Maceonians liked to pretend that they were Greek, and much of Alexanders army was conscripted from greeks trained in the new Phalanxe modle. Dear god that is one of the most painfull things I've read on these boards in a long time.
Kayli 08-11-05, 02:30 AM	Yea, especially the 4 and 5 sentences. I was really, really tired when i wrote that and I tend to ramble a bit when I get tired. But the facts are all accurate. And that is what is most important.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-11-05, 02:51 AM	I'm a staff fighter, but it applies. Most hafted weapons are made not to go after someone in open space ten feet away, but to jab someone through a portculis. Of course, you're boned once the guys are in a clear field because that skinny little haft makes the weapon unbalanced when used to reach out. That's why the staff fighting style came into being. To understand this, know a few things: 1) The quarterstaff presented in the DMG is geared toward Asian uses of it. A European quarterstaff is more like a maul or great club -- you smack and push people with it. You put one hand at on end and another a quarter of the way up (get it?) and jab or sweep outward. 2) While the quarter staff is a long (reachable) weapon when used this way, it really doesn't have more reach than a sword, just a different use. 3) At some point, someone realised that training with the quarterstaff would allow thier gate guards to better use thier 'stab guys trying to lift the portculis' weapons, thus saving money and metal on giveing them swords too. 4) There is a throw back to the long reach of the hafted weapon. Its a lunge in the fighting form we always called the 'pool cue'. Basically, you lunge like you would with a rapier, only with the haft couched in your arm, thereby fully extending the 4'-6' weapon into the enemie's gut. This was very good at knocking climber off walls without fear of being pulled off yourself.
Null Boundry 08-11-05, 05:03 AM	Yea, especially the 4 and 5 sentences. I was really, really tired when i wrote that and I tend to ramble a bit when I get tired. But the facts are all accurate. And that is what is most important. No, no they are not. I would suggest some background reading above and beyond "kinda watched a program on the History Channel".
seng3 08-11-05, 09:55 AM	I'm a staff fighter, but it applies. Most hafted weapons are made not to go after someone in open space ten feet away, but to jab someone through a portculis. You mean most polearm not meant to be used in open are? Tot they are primary use to go against horseman? Of course, you're boned once the guys are in a clear field because that skinny little haft makes the weapon unbalanced when used to reach out. That's why the staff fighting style came into being. So with staff fighting you can use polearm in opn area? To understand this, know a few things: 1) The quarterstaff presented in the DMG is geared toward Asian uses of it. A European quarterstaff is more like a maul or great club -- you smack and push people with it. You put one hand at on end and another a quarter of the way up (get it?) and jab or sweep outward. 2) While the quarter staff is a long (reachable) weapon when used this way, it really doesn't have more reach than a sword, just a different use. It got reach but only about as long as a Longsword(5' reach)? 3) At some point, someone realised that training with the quarterstaff would allow thier gate guards to better use thier 'stab guys trying to lift the portculis' weapons, thus saving money and metal on giveing them swords too. 4) There is a throw back to the long reach of the hafted weapon. Its a lunge in the fighting form we always called the 'pool cue'. Basically, you lunge like you would with a rapier, only with the haft couched in your arm, thereby fully extending the 4'-6' weapon into the enemie's gut. This was very good at knocking climber off walls without fear of being pulled off yourself. Sorry, I am not very clear here.. Its call a throw back and you lunge forward? With the weapon head infront? So if someone grab your weapon you just let go? :confused:
The Amazing Dancing Bear 08-11-05, 10:25 AM	I've just shifted to a longer Kung Fu staff, and there's a lot of thrusting in the form I'm doing...you could use a polearm like a spear in close combat (punch with hands on the grips, strike with the butt of the weapon), but all in all, making ranseurs, etc. ineffective at close range preserves game balance.
Enterik 08-11-05, 11:06 AM	...I forget which book it is, but it gives you one extra bludgeoning attack per round with the haft...maybe you can use that as some sort of standard? I am simply not a fan of spike chain and thought that polearm should be better... Below are two possible options... (there could be more) but I believe these options would still make non-reach weapon desirable since an additional feat is required... OK. To put to game term... what do you all think of these: option 1 take a feat (Polearm fighting) You may use the butt of a pole arm as a double weapon. The Head of the pole has reach of 10' while the butt has 5' The butt is a d6 blunt weapon and you only use half your str bonus for dmg. You only take the 2wf penalty if you use both end in the same round. The 2wf feat will reduce the 2wf penalty as per other double weapon option 2 Take a feat (Grip shift) Pre: Prof in any Reach weapon. you may change your grip of reach weapon as a move action that does not provoke AOO if you are prof with it. You may do this as part of your normal move.
Kayli 08-11-05, 12:58 PM	No, no they are not. I would suggest some background reading above and beyond "kinda watched a program on the History Channel". Go Back and study your greek history. Fact 1: The ancient greek formation was called a Hoplite. A hoplite was composed of columns of men wearing medium (in DnD terms) armor, a heavy shield and a (short)spear. The Hoplite was a "shock" troop and very effective on flat and lvl ground. This was the heavy infantry of the time. Fact 2: The Macedonians used a pike Phalanx as their primary foot soldier. It was comprised of men usually in light armor, weilding a 16-20 ft pike or sarissa, in deep rows. It was not a shock troop and was not a tide turner on the battle field. its primary job was to hold, or "push" enemy units into a position where Alexanders Elite Companion Cavalry could charge through or hit the flank of his enemies. Fact 3: Philip II is largely (and universaly) credited by historians with developing the Phalanx style used by the Macedonians during his, and Alexanders time. The History Channals not bad. But I do prefer Actual class rooms, of which I have taken more then one. Don't make stupid comments. If you think my facts or wrong, point it out and show what is right. But they are not, so it only shows your ignorance of the subject. Technicaly you could call the greek formation a Hoplite Phalanx, but you must adjudicate it with the world Hoplite, as Hoplite is specificaly the Greek Infantry model. Where as, if you simply say Phalanx, it more typicaly refers to the Macedonian Style of Infantry Formation.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-11-05, 01:49 PM	You mean most polearm not meant to be used in open are? Tot they are primary use to go against horseman? A pike that you're referring to is a much longer weapon than the ransuer/guisarme DnD uses. A pike can be around 10'-15' in length with a counter balance for setting. DnD style reach weapons are seldom longer than 8'. So with staff fighting you can use polearm in opn area? To clarify, you can use a polearm on open ground as a primary weapon -- its just not a good idea unless you know how to pull it in and fight up close with it. It got reach but only about as long as a Longsword(5' reach)? When used correctly in combat, yes. Sorry, I am not very clear here.. Its call a throw back and you lunge forward? With the weapon head infront? So if someone grab your weapon you just let go? :confused: Sorry, 'thorw back' isn't part of the actual technique, 'throw back' means it refers back to the original long reach technique of the weapon. As for letting go, yes, actually. A hafted weapon is ludicrusly easy to trap under ones arm or break, so if someone catches your hafted weapon, its smarter to just let go and draw your secondary weapon (Usually a long dagger, which is the DnD shortsword)
seng3 08-11-05, 08:43 PM	...I forget which book it is, but it gives you one extra bludgeoning attack per round with the haft...maybe you can use that as some sort of standard? Think its indeed called Spinning halberd. It allows only 1 extra bludgeoning attact at 1/2 Str bonus. However Halberd is not a reach weapon... But thats how I came up with option 1. It make polearm better than most non-reach weapon, but its a two handed weapon that you need to devote a feat. Its almost lik exotic weapon except that its more common. Or we can change it to something like.. Polearm Fighting You may use the butt of a pole arm as a staff. The Head of the pole has reach of 10' while the butt has 5' The butt is a d6 blunt weapon and you only use half your str bonus for dmg. You may combine attacks with both end but you do not gain extra attacks.
seng3 08-11-05, 08:52 PM	[QUOTE=Vaalingrade Ashland]A pike that you're referring to is a much longer weapon than the ransuer/guisarme DnD uses. A pike can be around 10'-15' in length with a counter balance for setting. DnD style reach weapons are seldom longer than 8'. [\Quote] Can you attack someone 10-15' away with a 8' weapon? I am not sure how long are the polearms in DnD but the Halberd is not a reach weapon and I believe they are around 6'-8'. The reach weapon (ransuer/guisarme) should be able to attack someone 10'-15' away to be consider a reach weapon right? I have not seen any in real life though..
Null Boundry 08-12-05, 05:18 AM	Go Back and study your greek history. I've studied it enough thanks, more than you obviously. I get the feeling your study was at a school level, try doing a degree and you will learn that the "facts" your teacher told you are just plain wrong. The simple fact that you think the History Channel is "not bad" says it all about your level of research. These are people that have claimed Augustus and Octavian are different people, missed out Theban hegemony in their history of Greece and quite happily claim Thermopolyie was a great victory for Greece and that on 200 Spartans fought there, no one else.
Kayli 08-12-05, 01:25 PM	I've studied it enough thanks, more than you obviously. I get the feeling your study was at a school level, try doing a degree and you will learn that the "facts" your teacher told you are just plain wrong. The simple fact that you think the History Channel is "not bad" says it all about your level of research. These are people that have claimed Augustus and Octavian are different people, missed out Theban hegemony in their history of Greece and quite happily claim Thermopolyie was a great victory for Greece and that on 200 Spartans fought there, no one else. Well, I never took debate, but I do know well enough to not make blanket statements and then to run for cover. Once again, you have said that I am "Wrong" but have in no way impuned the 3 facts that I have stated. If you are indeed the "All Wise Swami of All things Ancient and Greek" as you seem to be claiming, then it should be a simple matter for you to enlighten me as to the truth. Seeing as you have no apparent ability to do so, leads me to a different conclusion as to your knowledge of the subject matter. A blanket statement made twice does not the truth make.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-12-05, 02:03 PM	Can you attack someone 10-15' away with a 8' weapon? I am not sure how long are the polearms in DnD but the Halberd is not a reach weapon and I believe they are around 6'-8'. The reach weapon (ransuer/guisarme) should be able to attack someone 10'-15' away to be consider a reach weapon right? I have not seen any in real life though.. Your arm is three feet long. And the halberd should be reach.
NehpetsTtocs 08-12-05, 03:18 PM	I'm not re-enactor, but I've watched a few. I think that with reach weapons, like pikes, it is very difficult to breach a strong formation. I have heard from re-enactors that kneeling is a big no-no if facing a charge from horses, or a dedicated opponant, as the person holding the pike needs to step aside (or get squished). I think that probably a really long weapon, like a pike, could become a liability. The Swiss mercenaries who fought the Burgundians, Austrians and just about everybody else, often went to battle with little armor, a pike, and a blade between the length of a dagger and a sword called a baselard, which was essentially a short sword, similar in appearance (at least blade wise) to the swords the Romans used. With that in mind, I don't they would have armed themselves so specifically if there was no danger of their lines being breached. Generally, they probably prepared for two types of combat, distance with the pike, and up very close quarters with the shorter sword. Course, the Swiss were also fond of crossbows, but I believe they used them in the same manner the Genoans did, with a pavise sheild. There are some medieval/rennaisance fighting manuals online, and interestingly enough, weapons like the forest bill, halbard and staff are considered superior to most swords. One man, an Englishman, George Silver pretty much considers the bill the greatest thing since baked bread (mwaha, I made a funny). I think his treatise is called paradoxes of defense, and the work is concerned primarily with dueling and self defense. Yeah, I think reach weapons, maybe not the pike for dueling, were considered among the best weapons of their time. If I were a such a soldier, I think I'd opt for an arbalest or a longbow, but that's just me.
tiercel 08-12-05, 06:00 PM	In a game where a 6'9 bugbear with a greatsword has no reach advantage over a 2'8 halfling with a pair of daggers, I think it is safe to say that the weapon rules for reach are streamlined for ease of gameplay. In particular, a regular reach weapon (e.g. polearm) gives you a special ability (attack creatures further away) but with a cost (can't attack adjacent creatures). You can imagine workarounds, say, special training to pull the weapon's point back toward you to attack something nearby, but the basic concept -- the action, if you are a pikeman, is happening at the far end of the pike, or you have a problem -- is basically sound.
Tony Vargas 08-12-05, 07:03 PM	A hoplite wearing medium (in DnD terms) armor, a heavy shield and a (short)spear. That's a pretty tenuous aproximation. A hoplite's spear was much longer than a D&D shortspear - longer than the wielder was tall, at least, making it a spear or possibly even a longspear (in either case, a weapon D&D doesn't let you use one handed). The hoplon was a unique shield, with straps and the center and edge, that protected both the wearer, and the man to his left - neither a heavy nor a tower shield really model that very well, either. The armor portion of hoplite panoply would probably be closer to D&D hide armor than anything else, though there's debate as to what it consisted of - but, yeah, probably a medium armor in D&D terms, more or less. Anyway, the greek hoplite represents an historical example of using a spear - for it's greater reach - and a shield, afoot (as opposed to a lance & shield, mounted). Something D&D chooses not to model.
Kayli 08-13-05, 04:46 AM	That's a pretty tenuous aproximation. A hoplite's spear was much longer than a D&D shortspear - longer than the wielder was tall, at least, making it a spear or possibly even a longspear (in either case, a weapon D&D doesn't let you use one handed). The hoplon was a unique shield, with straps and the center and edge, that protected both the wearer, and the man to his left - neither a heavy nor a tower shield really model that very well, either. The armor portion of hoplite panoply would probably be closer to D&D hide armor than anything else, though there's debate as to what it consisted of - but, yeah, probably a medium armor in D&D terms, more or less. Anyway, the greek hoplite represents an historical example of using a spear - for it's greater reach - and a shield, afoot (as opposed to a lance & shield, mounted). Something D&D chooses not to model. Yea, DnD does not do a very good job of acuratly representing real ancient military units and their equipment, but that was the best I could do using the Rules as stated in DnD. Has to be a short spear, since that is the only one that can be wielded 1 handed in DnD. Light Shield is simpley too small. Towar Shield is simply too large. As for the Armor, it would really depend on how wealthy the individual soldier was, since they provided their own gear. One or two might (might being the operative word) have had a bronze breast plate.
Willie the Duck 08-13-05, 10:36 PM	Hi, anyone owns or use a reach weapon in real life? Anyone trained in one? Or just know about it? I mean any of those polearms that can strike opponent 10 ft away.... Can it be use when opponent is near? Is it just like in the game systm where you have to move back ? that is, reach weapon but do not threathen the first 5ft? The primary difference between the game and real life is that one guy with a reach weapon in real life does not provide the amazing batlefield control he does in the game. As has already been mentioned, there are at least two types of polearms. One, formation weapons, are used in large numbers by a bunch of people in tight formation. They are entirely too long to be gripped closer and have alot of characteristics that make them not resemble D&D weapons (for instance, you wouldn't really get to add your strength, because most of the impact is from enemy ranks running into them). The reach of these weapons keep enemies from attacking the weilder directly (you don't just take an AoO to get through, you literally can't advance), but unlike a D&D reach weapon, a single guy standing on his own with one of these can't attack anyone, instead of being able to AoO just about anyone. The other type of polearm, is simply a long hafted weapon. These can often be gripped closer, or have their butt end swung, to attack foes within their reach (at reduced effectiveness). These weapons are simply extended varieties of the fact that all weapons have varying levels of reach. A 10' ransuer has more reach than a 8' halberd, which has more than a 6' lochabar axe, which has more than a battle-axe, which has more than a shortsword. Since the rules are too simple to compare each weapon's size and give whoever's is bigger an AoO, we have the simplified reach system. These weapons more closely resemble the AoO concept, as you do get something of a whack as the other guy clears your reach.
daimyotx 08-14-05, 05:48 AM	1) The quarterstaff presented in the DMG is geared toward Asian uses of it. A European quarterstaff is more like a maul or great club -- you smack and push people with it. You put one hand at on end and another a quarter of the way up (get it?) and jab or sweep outward. Most people also don't realize that there are big differences just in grip between European, Japanese, and Chinese styles of staff (to use a single easy term) fighting. The typical European style of quarterstaff fighting was very similar to pugilism. The grip places the hands approximately 1 foot from the center of the staff (your hands would be 2 feet apart). This would allow you to do close-in sweeps and slaps with both ends of the staff. Of all three regional styles, this is actually the best for close-up fighting with the staff. You have less reach with this style though. (actually, about the same reach as a longsword) Having been trained in Isshin-ryu Karate and in the use of a Bo, I've learned a bit about the Japanese styles of staff fighting. The basic grip was one hand in the center and one hand a quarter down. This grip allows you to use the staff for sweeps, jabs, and slaps. If an opponent gets inside the arc of the staff, your options are very limited. You either shift stances to gain some distance, or you use discard the staff and use kicks and punches to eliminate your opponent. Ignore what you see in movies of people using Karate and doing lots of kicks and punches while still maintaining a grip on their staff. The forms and stances in karate aren't very conducive to holding a long unwieldy weapon in a single hand. Karate is what's known simply as a hard style. Mainly concentrating on strike, block, counterstrike. A good friend, with whom I used to spar on occasion (and take regular beatings from), is a student of Seven Star Praying Mantis Kung Fu. Their basic staff grips are very different - one hand at the butt of the staff and one hand about a foot farther up. In combination with their flowing forms, this grip allowed for some very dynamic and surprising attacks. But once you got inside the reach of their staff, they had to rely on kicks and hand stricks in combination with staff work to get you back outside of their space and back into striking range of the staff. This is what you see in movies a lot lately. Kung Fu has had a renaissance in the movies because of its spectacular leaps and amazing flowing stances. Now having said all that about staves.... :) Halberds are mainly for pulling or striking men on horseback. When not used against mounted opponents, they were combined in formation with other weapons with shorter reach. A halberd is used in stabbing, chopping, and hooking motions with the grips mid-half and lower-quarter-haft. To try to use this in combat, you'f have to grib the weapon just below the head, and then you'd have a large amount of unwieldy staff to contend with. The weapon itself is plainly not designed to be used for close-combat. Once an opponent gets inside the arc of the blade (and spear and beak), you're screwed if you don't drop that weapon. They have NO close-combat value whatsoever. You're as like to snag your own armor or lop your foot off than strike an opponent. At that point a halberd is more of a hindrance then a help. This can be applied to a LOT of the European polearms. Lots were just regional variations on a basic weapon theme. Most polearms all follow the same basic rules. They were not designed to be used for close-combat. Using them in combat in any way other than they are designed tends to result in disaster. D&D does a very good job of getting this correct and setting up a rule basis for it. They even cover the spiked chain (which I always see as a bastardized version of the Kung Fu nine-sectioned chain). IMO the reach rules used in D&D are very accurate (once you fit real-world weapons into a fantasy system with a structured and balanced ruleset). If you want to use a reach weapon properly, you work in concert with someone armed with a standard melee weapon and you maintain your reach the entire fight. Remember, the greatest fighters know the limits of the weapons they use. They know when it's time to drop a weapon and change tactics. They don't try to use a weapon as it wasn't intended. That introduces a preventable uncontrollable circumstance into your combat. That's something you never want. Combat in itself is unpredictable, but you do have SOME control over the influences on your fight. Never introduce an element into combat that you don't have full control over.
Vahenir 08-14-05, 08:06 AM	Whoo.. took me a few minutes, but I got through all the required reading. Here's my piece: D&D combat is explicitly meant to provide rules for a 'duel' type of setting where a small number of combatants square off against one another in a very free-moving battlefield. Weapons, tactics, and gear tied to anything other than this style of combat absolutely sucks in D&D - and it's my personal opinion that such objects of history should have been left entirely out of the game, rather than being shoved in nonsensically. For the record, there are very few weapons that can actually effectively strike an opponent 10 feet away from you. I don't think many gamers really appreciate just how far 10 feet really is. Try this... Go into your toolbox (or your father's toolbox, for you young'ins) and grab the tape measure. Run it out until you see the big 10 FT. marker and lock it in place. Now law it down on the floor and just look at it. That's quite a distance. So what kind of weapon can reach an opponent that far away? I'm glad you asked. A -battlefield formation- weapon. Such as a pike. These weapons are UTTERLY and TOTALLY useless when not in formation. What many people fail to understand about the subject of arms is that many weapons were created with specific roles in mind - because as chaotic as battle is - it's also quite organized (oxymoronic, I know). Particular groups of soldiers have particular weapons and secondary weapons, and thus have particular roles they serve. A man with a pike is not a 'pike-fighter.' He's a 'take-the-first-hit' loser. IF he happens to survive first impact with the enemy cavalry (or in rarer cases - infantry), it's likely that he'd drop his pike in favour of a small sword, axe, club, or even a knife. All of which are preferrable over a weapon that's too long to actually be used. Suffice to say -- the chances are that if you can effectively attack someone fully 10 feet away from you with your weapon (note the word "effectively"), then you have no business using that weapon without about 50 guys around you using the same weapon.
Bez 08-14-05, 08:19 AM	Having trained for several years with a bill (I'm a 15th C re-enactor), I would say that the reach rules are about right for allowing an AoO against anyone closing, but I would have to say that you can use a polearm quite well once someone is toe-to-toe with you. We use steel weapons, based on originals from the period. In a line fight, a swordman pretty much needs to pile into a unit of billmen to split them up, as when a swordman is within his reach of a billman in a unit, he can be hit not only by that guy, but the two guys next to him, and the two guys next to them. Generally if faced with a unit of spear/bill/polarm armed men, split them up and they lose the advantage, otherwise they're covering each other. If you can split them and flank them, then they die (polearms are slower to change direction than swords - but it's mostly the flanking). One-on-one, if the billman can keep the swordman at reach, then he can avoid getting hit, whilst still attacking his opponent, if the swordman can get past the bill-head, then he has a distinct advantage. It takes a good swordman to beat an average billman, but if they manage to get past the bill-head, it takes a good billman to not be beaten by an average swordman. So, I'd say for more realism, I'd say that an AoO should stop someone from moving through your reach area (jabbing at someone stops them moving at you) and that polearms should be useable at 5', but with penalties. Both of these obviously boost reach weapons, but then again, most historical armies from before rifles had units with spears, halberds, bills, or other polearms as primary weapons, few had swords as a main weapon, most organised militaries used it as a secondary weapon for close in fighting, once javelins had been thrown, if the spear got broken, enemy was a bit close to be using a bow, etc. Just my opinions, but most of the re-enactors I know (including most of those that prefer swords) seem to think the same.
Bez 08-14-05, 08:21 AM	Oh yes, I forgot to mention pikes. These are pretty much useless outside of a formation, unless they're covering a hole or corridor that's only a few feet wide. Very slow to turn, pretty much can only be used to stab. Great if there's a large unit, pants on thier own.