Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lich thing 09-27-06, 12:33 PM	Well, i was wondering: why i cant kick someone who passes trough my area while im holdin a bloody reach weapon? Think: its preety simple. Just hold the weapon with one hand and *punch* or *kick* him! Tha same thing aplies for tha bow... I imagine that u cant attack with the weapon, but u could use ur natural weapons or unarmed strike. I know the rules say the oposite, but it seems preety logical. Am alone? See ya!
calvinNhobbes 09-27-06, 12:41 PM	Well with that logic, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to attack with any reach weapon pole type weapon (long spear, polearms etc) as a quaterstaff if they are at 5 feet. And then if we extend that, why is the spear not a double weapon? It is like a quarterstaff but with a point on one end. And if the spear can be a double weapon, why not polearms? It's a game, not a realistic mathematical model of the world, change it as you see fit.
mvincent 09-27-06, 12:47 PM	Well, i was wondering: why i cant kick someone who passes trough my area while im holdin a bloody reach weapon? Think: its preety simple. Just hold the weapon with one hand and *punch* or *kick* him! Tha same thing aplies for tha bow... I imagine that u cant attack with the weapon, but u could use ur natural weapons or unarmed strike. I know the rules say the oposite, but it seems preety logical. Am alone?Unarmed strikes don't normally threaten (i.e. you couldn't do this even if you weren't carrying a reach weapon). However, you could do this (with or without a reach weapon) if you had improved unarmed strike or armor spikes. It seems that your complaint about reach weapons is actually invalid.
Lich thing 09-27-06, 12:55 PM	Well with that logic, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to attack with any reach weapon pole type weapon (long spear, polearms etc) as a quaterstaff if they are at 5 feet. And then if we extend that, why is the spear not a double weapon? It is like a quarterstaff but with a point on one end. And if the spear can be a double weapon, why not polearms? Thtas preety simple(well, at least in my point of view...:D): CUS REACH WEAPONS ARE TOO DAMN BIG (and normally has a bloody heavy head)! Think how hard would be to someone swing a longspear as a double-weapon? About the unarmed strike, i was thinkin about someone that can make the aoo (thats why i put the natural weapons example too...). Dunno... See ya!
risner 09-27-06, 01:13 PM	Just hold the weapon with one hand and *punch* or *kick* him! You need to threaten. You don't threaten with unarmed strikes without Improved Unarmed Strike. You could also threaten with Armour Spikes.
Lich thing 09-27-06, 01:22 PM	You need to threaten. You don't threaten with unarmed strikes without Improved Unarmed Strike. Aw dude... did u read my post (right before urs...)... I WAS CONSIDERING IT! Anyway... See ya!
Longarms 09-27-06, 01:35 PM	"Well, i was wondering: why i cant kick someone who passes trough my area while im holdin a bloody reach weapon? Think: its preety simple. Just hold the weapon with one hand and *punch* or *kick* him! Tha same thing aplies for tha bow..." Under RAW you can get an AoO in that situation. All you need is either 1) armor spikes or 2) no armor spikes and instead improved unarmed combat. Lets focus on 2) because you said you want to kick people who get in close range. With the unarmed combat feat, you threaten people with an offhand unarmed attack, even when both your "hands" are holding a reach weapon or ranged weapon. Your "off hand" in this case is your head for headbutting, your foot for kicking, your knee for kneeing, etc. Your damage is 1d3. You can avoid the feat with armor spikes. Assume that you are kicking the opponent during the AoO with a metal boot having a spike, or kneeing them with a spike on your knee. You do 1d6 damage. No feat required.
mvincent 09-27-06, 01:36 PM	thats why i put the natural weapons example tooI believe that you technically need the limb available to take advantage of an AoO. If you are holding the reach weapon with your natural weapon (say, a claw), that claw is not available to AoO. At the end of each of your turns you could just switch grips so that you are holding the reach weapon in one hand (allowing the claw to threaten), but then the reach weapon would not threaten. However, armor spikes and unarmed strikes can be used with something other than your hands (i.e. knee, foot etc.), so no shifting of your grip is needed.
calvinNhobbes 09-27-06, 01:39 PM	Thtas preety simple(well, at least in my point of view...:D): CUS REACH WEAPONS ARE TOO DAMN BIG (and normally has a bloody heavy head)! Think how hard would be to someone swing a longspear as a double-weapon? About the unarmed strike, i was thinkin about someone that can make the aoo (thats why i put the natural weapons example too...). Dunno... See ya! You think a long spear would be more difficult to use as a double weapon than an orc double axe? Really? Or a dire flail? I don't think so. Also let's not even use a reach weapon. Let's just look at the normal one handed spear. Why can't it be used two-handed as a double weapon? With one end the spear, and the other end count as a quarterstaff Also, I think you misunderstood my scenario. If you are using a long spear, and your opponent is 5 feet away, why can't you just making an arcing attacking like a bseball bat and hit the person with the shaft of the spear? In reality there is no reason why you couldn't. But this is a game.
Daosus 09-27-06, 01:52 PM	You think a long spear would be more difficult to use as a double weapon than an orc double axe? Really? Or a dire flail? hahahaha, yes, they are indeed not real weapons and therefore there's no real way to use them. Let's just look at the normal one handed spear. Why can't it be used two-handed as a double weapon? With one end the spear, and the other end count as a quarterstaff Also, I think you misunderstood my scenario. If you are using a long spear, and your opponent is 5 feet away, why can't you just making an arcing attacking like a bseball bat and hit the person with the shaft of the spear? In reality there is no reason why you couldn't. Both of those scenarios assume one thing: one attack=one swing. You COULD make the swing, but it's unlikely to connect, so for the sake of simplicity, the game doesn't model everything. Technically, you could attack with just about anything and threaten with just about anything, but with massive penalties to both attack and damage. Plus, this would make halberdier fighters harder to get through than some walls.
calvinNhobbes 09-27-06, 02:23 PM	hahahaha, yes, they are indeed not real weapons and therefore there's no real way to use them. Both of those scenarios assume one thing: one attack=one swing. You COULD make the swing, but it's unlikely to connect, so for the sake of simplicity, the game doesn't model everything. Technically, you could attack with just about anything and threaten with just about anything, but with massive penalties to both attack and damage. Plus, this would make halberdier fighters harder to get through than some walls. Well AOO assumes one attack equals one swing, so that IS the case sometimes in the game. Exactly, the game does not model everything. Accept it, or spend alot of time trying to do what professional game designers either couldn't or did and decided it was just too complicated and impractical to implement. That is bascially what I was trying to explain the the OOP. Also, why does considering a spear a double weapon assume one attack=one swing. If a quarterstaff can be a double weapon, why not a spear?
fatal error 09-27-06, 03:40 PM	Plus, this would make halberdier fighters harder to get through than some walls. No! Halberds are not reach weapons. Goodness, I swear, half the people on this board think anything with a haft is a reach weapon. Spears (not longspears) aren't reach weapons either. Anyway, to the OP, if you want to kick someone as an AoO, take Improved Unarmed Strike. Makes sense to me.
demon666fast 09-27-06, 05:40 PM	You think a long spear would be more difficult to use as a double weapon than an orc double axe? Really? Or a dire flail? I don't think so. Lol, Hell yeah! The long spear is almost two times longer than any double weapon. Let's just look at the normal one handed spear. Why can't it be used two-handed as a double weapon? With one end the spear, and the other end count as a quarterstaff The short spear is a little shorter than the staff, but by the rules you could use it, you'd just take a -4 penalty on your attacks. But it would probably break in half doing that, in real world, not in the game tough. Also, I think you misunderstood my scenario. If you are using a long spear, and your opponent is 5 feet away, why can't you just making an arcing attacking like a bseball bat and hit the person with the shaft of the spear? In reality there is no reason why you couldn't. If you are refering to a possible AoO, you couldn't because 1) you are not threating the squares 5 ft. away from you and 2) the opponent would only provoke AoO in the squares 10ft away from you, so even if wanted to make an improvised attack with the long spear or a kick or punch, you couldn't because you wouldn't reach him. If it's a normal attack, I would allow you to make an attack with a long spear against an opponent 5ft. away from you, but not like a double weapon, losing the reach for that round and with -4 to your attack. But this is a game. Thank god. Otherwise you would surely die a quick terrible and bloody death in a battlefield using that weapons that way.:D
Esponer 09-27-06, 06:07 PM	As said by other people, you could kick somebody as they pass by you when you wield a reach weapon like a longspear. However, unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you don't have the martial prowess to do this in time: so you don't threaten unarmed otherwise. Once you have the appropriate feat, you can do this. You couldn't attack with a punch, however, and this is logical: you don't have time to switch your grip on your longspear. Also, turns and rounds are arbitrary: in reality, you don't just stop acting inbetween your turns. You're probably almost swinging your longspear again already (representing next turn's action), so finding time to switch grips, punch, get your grip again and continue the same attacking motion is a little unreasonable. A longspear can be used to attack adjacent foes. You take a -4 penalty to your attack roll, and deal bludgeoning damage appropriate to its size: improvised weapon rules. It can also be used for two-weapon fighting, again as an improvised weapon, although you'd take massive penalties as it's not designed for that (probably -10/-14).
demon666fast 09-27-06, 06:11 PM	Well, i was wondering: why i cant kick someone who passes trough my area while im holdin a bloody reach weapon? Think: its preety simple. Just hold the weapon with one hand and *punch* or *kick* him! Tha same thing aplies for tha bow... I imagine that u cant attack with the weapon, but u could use ur natural weapons or unarmed strike. I know the rules say the oposite, but it seems preety logical. Am alone? See ya! That wouldn't work because the opponent would provoke AoO 10ft. from you. You would not reach him with an unarmed attack. So if you are wielding a long spear and the opponent charges at you, he provokes AoO when leaving the square 10ft. away from you, it doesn't matter if you have IUS or natural attacks or a third arm.
Lich thing 09-27-06, 08:40 PM	That wouldn't work because the opponent would provoke AoO 10ft. from you. You would not reach him with an unarmed attack. So if you are wielding a long spear and the opponent charges at you, he provokes AoO when leaving the square 10ft. away from you, it doesn't matter if you have IUS or natural attacks or a third arm. Aw god... Well, thats not the case. I was thinkin in someone at 5ft of u and creatin an AOO chance... I know... its hard to happen, but, why not? Someone said about Improved Unnarmed Strike and the combat prowness that it "creates" on u. Well... if u stop a lil u will see that punch someone that comes by u runnin is not that hard... See ya!
calvinNhobbes 09-27-06, 09:53 PM	You are confused. I am not trying to explain why the game models reality. I am trying to show how the game does NOT model reality. By saying I can not do it because of a game rule is pointless. Lol, Hell yeah! The long spear is almost two times longer than any double weapon. A pointy 10 foot pole would be harder to wield than a 6 foot pole with a chain attached to both ends with spiked balls? Um no, just no, please use some common sense. The short spear is a little shorter than the staff, but by the rules you could use it, you'd just take a -4 penalty on your attacks. But it would probably break in half doing that, in real world, not in the game tough. How about the regular spear. Also two handed, most likely the same size as a staff. Why can't that be used as a double weapon? 1d8/1d6 piercing/bludgeon weapon. What makes the shaft of a quarterstaff soooooooooooo special that only it can be used as a double weapon. If you are refering to a possible AoO, you couldn't because 1) you are not threating the squares 5 ft. away from you and 2) the opponent would only provoke AoO in the squares 10ft away from you, so even if wanted to make an improvised attack with the long spear or a kick or punch, you couldn't because you wouldn't reach him. This is all game rules and has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Please explain why wielding a 10 foot long pointy stick does not allow me to threaten some one 5 feet in front of me? Who says I have to stab with the pointy end? Why can I not whap the enemy with the shaft? The D&D model of combat is flawed. 1) The games says wielding a reach weapon does not allow you to threaten 5 feet away, this is a poor model of reality. 2) Agreed, but why would you when you can then attack with the pointy end of the stick
demon666fast 09-27-06, 09:54 PM	Aw god... Well, thats not the case. I was thinkin in someone at 5ft of u and creatin an AOO chance... I know... its hard to happen, but, why not? Dude, If you are wielding a reach weapon, I can dance the macarena running 5ft. around you without provoking an AoO. If you have Improved Unarmed Strike or any natural weapon, I would provoke an AoO dancing 5ft. from you and you could kick my ass for good, but what's point in holding the reach weapon then? If you are wielding a two-handed reach weapon and have IUS, you can make an AoO with the weapon if the guy is 10 ft. or with an unarmed attack if he is 5ft. Someone said about Improved Unnarmed Strike and the combat prowness that it "creates" on u. Well... if u stop a lil u will see that punch someone that comes by u runnin is not that hard... If you mean someone running passing by your side, and you have Improved Unarmed Strike, that's not hard to imagine, that's a sure possibility, since he will provoke an AoO from you. You can punch him or trip him, or grab him for example. If you mean running to you, to attack you, he doesn't provokes AoO, unless you wield a reach weapon. I'm sorry, I can't see the doubt. I think even you don't know what you want.
calvinNhobbes 09-27-06, 10:07 PM	Dude, If you are wielding a reach weapon, I can dance the macarena running 5ft. around you without provoking an AoO. And it is this very reason that the rule for reach weapon minimal range is a poor model of reality. In reality, you would just whap the dancing fool with the shaft of the reach weapon.
demon666fast 09-27-06, 11:16 PM	You are confused. I am not trying to explain why the game models reality. I am trying to show how the game does NOT model reality. By saying I can not do it because of a game rule is pointless. A pointy 10 foot pole would be harder to wield than a 6 foot pole with a chain attached to both ends with spiked balls? Um no, just no, please use some common sense. I'm sorry, i really didn't understand you point. So let's talk about the 'real' deal so, as far as we can. Sure the game does not model real life, because there were no such things as double-swords, double-axes or double flails. How can you make assumptions using real life arguments about things that never existed. That's pointless. If you want to discuss the "reality aspect" of the game at least let's discuss things that exist in both worlds, that's common sense. How about the regular spear. Also two handed, most likely the same size as a staff. Why can't that be used as a double weapon? 1d8/1d6 piercing/bludgeon weapon. What makes the shaft of a quarterstaff soooooooooooo special that only it can be used as a double weapon. Well, there were hunreds of different types of spears, most were used for throwing, a few for melee combat, and fewer were designed as melee and ranged weapons. I'm not a weapons expert and I have no idea what type of spear is the D&D one. It must be light enough to be effectively thrown, but not too much as it would be unneffective in melee combat. You can use a short spear as a double handed weapon, you just wield it this way, but it will not be effective as a quarterstaff, for the same reason using a quarterstaff as a throwing weapon will not be as effective as doing that with a short spear. The balance of of both weapons are different. The quarterstaff's weight is divided equally along its 'body'. The short spear is not. Also, a spear is a piercing weapon, it's used primarly for thrusts. If you wield as a double weapon, you won't be able to apply all the power to the thrust, and it will lose much of its reach too. This is all game rules and has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Please explain why wielding a 10 foot long pointy stick does not allow me to threaten some one 5 feet in front of me? Who says I have to stab with the pointy end? Why can I not whap the enemy with the shaft? The D&D model of combat is flawed. I've NEVER said a long spear couldn't be used to attack at 5ft. and thus, threating that 5ft. You CAN, but for obvious reasons, that's not an effective way to attack with a 10 ft. stick. It's too big, the weight is divided and not concentraded as in a 7ft. sitck, thus, you lose much of the momentum to attack. Also, if you try to hit with the middle of the haft, the size of the weapon will suffer air resistance, and you will lose power when attacking. Take a look at historical facts, soldiers with long spears always carried a sword or some close combat weapon with them, because for many other reasons that an arms expert would know, a long spear is NOT meant to used in close combat. 1) The games says wielding a reach weapon does not allow you to threaten 5 feet away, this is a poor model of reality. No it's not. Reach weapons were made to be used against opponents far way or to prevent them for coming closer. Long spears are an example. Also long spear were useless if not implemented in large groups. A sole long spearer was a sitting duck. I don't know if they threatened people close to the wielder, "threaten'' and "AoO" are game terms only. But a long spear in close combat was not near as dangerous as a longsword, if dangerous at all. But in D&D you can attack someone near you, if you wield the weapon to attack someond near you, or 5ft. away, you threaten that square and attack people thar are there, but it won't be effective, thus -4 to attack. You can do that in real world as in D&D, but in both settings, it won't be effective. 2) Agreed, but why would you when you can then attack with the pointy end of the stick I was trying to answer the OP question.
demon666fast 09-27-06, 11:18 PM	And it is this very reason that the rule for reach weapon minimal range is a poor model of reality. In reality, you would just whap the dancing fool with the shaft of the reach weapon. You can, but then you would lose the reach. You would have to change the weapon's direction to try to hit me, and the whole weight and size would be cumbersome to make an attack as good as if you were attacking with a quarterstaff. D&D model for that situation is just perfect.
demon666fast 09-27-06, 11:36 PM	Dude, accept it, in real life a lone soldier wielding a long spear has 3 options, draw a sword, run or die. That's what happens for thousands of years. Pikers didn't carry swords for fun, they knew how to do their job.
calvinNhobbes 09-28-06, 10:05 AM	Wow, demon666fast, a triple post, you must really love long spears. I think you need to read a little more carefully because you have misread most of what I have written and in some case your own posts. You can use a short spear as a double handed weapon In my most recent post I specificed spear, not short spear. That was a mistake of mine in an earlier post. The spear is in fact a two-handed weapon without reach, identical in fact to the quarterstaff except it has a pointy end. Also, a spear is a piercing weapon, it's used primarly for thrusts. If you wield as a double weapon, you won't be able to apply all the power to the thrust, and it will lose much of its reach too. A spear does not have reach according to the rules. In addition, I never said a spear is not primarily a piercing weapon. HOWEVER, watch any martial art demostration with a spear and notice several attacks include using the shaft for bludgeoning attacks. In addition, part of learning how to use a weapon is knowing how to adjust ones stance to redirect attacks. I've NEVER said a long spear couldn't be used to attack at 5ft. and thus, threating that 5ft. Actually you did right here: If you are refering to a possible AoO, you couldn't because 1) you are not threating the squares 5 ft. away from you You CAN, but for obvious reasons, that's not an effective way to attack with a 10 ft. stick. It's too big, the weight is divided and not concentraded as in a 7ft. sitck, thus, you lose much of the momentum to attack. Also, if you try to hit with the middle of the haft, the size of the weapon will suffer air resistance, and you will lose power when attacking. Take a look at historical facts, soldiers with long spears always carried a sword or some close combat weapon with them, because for many other reasons that an arms expert would know, a long spear is NOT meant to used in close combat. I completely agree. I never said it would as effective as a normal attack BUT you should still threaten the area and be able to make an improvised attack. As the rules stand now, you do not even threaten the area around you while weilding a reach weapon unless you have armor spikes or improved unarmed strike. This is not a good model of real combat. Reach weapons were made to be used against opponents far way or to prevent them for coming closer. I never said they weren't. Thanks for stating the obvious. But a long spear in close combat was not near as dangerous as a longsword I never said it was. Once again thanks for changing the topic and stating the obvious. But in D&D you can attack someone near you, if you wield the weapon to attack someond near you, or 5ft. away, you threaten that square and attack people thar are there, but it won't be effective, thus -4 to attack. You can do that in real world as in D&D, but in both settings, it won't be effective. I never said it would be effective in either case. However, in D&D you can not even attempt the attack because you do not threaten the area adjacent to you with reach weapon. As you already pointed out, in D&D you can in theory run circles around someone wielding a long spear and that person can not attack unless they step 5 feet away. Realistic? No. You can, but then you would lose the reach. Whaping someone in an arcing motion using your long spear does not make the long spear shorter You would have to change the weapon's direction to try to hit me, and the whole weight and size would be cumbersome to make an attack as good as if you were attacking with a quarterstaff. I never said it would be as effective as a quarterstaff. The quarterstaff example is with a spear (a non-reach two-handed weapon just like a quarterstaff but with a pointy end). D&D model for that situation is just perfect. No it is not, as you actually proved yourself via the macarena example. Dude, accept it, in real life a lone soldier wielding a long spear has 3 options, draw a sword, run or die. That's what happens for thousands of years. Pikers didn't carry swords for fun, they knew how to do their job. At no point did I ever say that long spears are effective short range weapons. I have only stated that the rules say you do not threaten adjacent squares when wielding a reach weapon (and therefore can not take an AOO). This is not realistic.
Ranger REG 09-29-06, 02:44 AM	Well, i was wondering: why i cant kick someone who passes trough my area while im holdin a bloody reach weapon? Think: its preety simple. Just hold the weapon with one hand and *punch* or *kick* him! Tha same thing aplies for tha bow... If you're a monk, you can, since their class allow them to use any available body parts to strike. That and their unarmed strike counts as "armed" for the purpose of AoO. Even if you're not a monk, you could but then you lose the advantage of your reach weapon until your next turn. Also, your unarmed strike (without IUS feat) provokes AoO.
Vaelan 09-29-06, 03:19 AM	If you're a monk, you can, since their class allow them to use any available body parts to strike. That and their unarmed strike counts as "armed" for the purpose of AoO. Actually, it is the description of Unarmed Strike that specifies this, which is in no way Monk-specific. Even if you're not a monk, you could but then you lose the advantage of your reach weapon until your next turn. I don't believe you. Show me the rule that states this.
Moon-Lancer 09-29-06, 09:37 AM	I don't believe you. Show me the rule that states this. thier is no rule ether way. I find people come up with the strangest rules though, if they dont want to beleave something is possible or they think is too strong, but yeah its 100% lagit and its awsome. Main problem is that monks are not proficent with any reach weapons, so 1 level of fighter is in order with combat reflexes. Hold said glave out and rake combat reflexes a worthwhile feat. Its possible that only monks can use any part of their body, specificly. Its only the monk discription that is says this. "A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full." you wont find anything like that in the improved unarmed strike feat. However it doesent say exactly what unarmed strikes are in the first place... so you may be right based of a lack of clarification. You wont find anyplace that a unarmed strike is a punch.
striderII 09-29-06, 10:17 AM	Sure the game does not model real life, because there were no such things as double-swords, double-axes or double flails. How can you make assumptions using real life arguments about things that never existed. That's pointless. If you want to discuss the "reality aspect" of the game at least let's discuss things that exist in both worlds, that's common sense. Actually, if we want to talk about that, that's fine. Let's do so. There is a reason that those weapons didn't exist in real life - they are horribly inefficient at what they are designed to do, and in some cases (dire flail), they are just poor at actually being able to do any damage to anyone at all - at least, without doing damage to the wielder as well. They're really just crappy weapons, all told. Also, a spear is a piercing weapon, it's used primarly for thrusts. If you wield as a double weapon, you won't be able to apply all the power to the thrust, and it will lose much of its reach too. Thrust, strike your opponent's torso (do damage), pull back on the spear to pull it out of your opponent, step in and strike with the butt of the spear. There, double weapon. Not difficult at all, and it doesn't take anything away from the spear's power during a thrust, either. I've NEVER said a long spear couldn't be used to attack at 5ft. and thus, threating that 5ft. You CAN, but for obvious reasons, that's not an effective way to attack with a 10 ft. stick. It's too big, the weight is divided and not concentraded as in a 7ft. sitck, thus, you lose much of the momentum to attack. Also, if you try to hit with the middle of the haft, the size of the weapon will suffer air resistance, and you will lose power when attacking. Take a look at historical facts, soldiers with long spears always carried a sword or some close combat weapon with them, because for many other reasons that an arms expert would know, a long spear is NOT meant to used in close combat. Speaking from a historical perspective, something like a longspear is poor in close combat due to the fact that a strike with the haft would do little against a man in armour. Technique-wise, were I to use a longspear in a situation like we're discussing here, this is what might happen: 1. Use the longspear to thrust at opponents that are farther away from me. Historically, quite a few spears in general had some sort of langets (I think that's the right term...little fuzzy at the moment), or lugs that allowed a spear to enter an opponent and keep the shaft from sliding through the body, thereby keeping said opponent at range. This was more typically used for boar hunting, but was known to have been used in combat as well. 2. Assuming that I have no allies with sword and shield (or similar armament), and an opponent closes, my only defense with my spear would be to immediately change stance, and draw the spear to a vertical orientation, with the point in the air. This would allow me to have some sort of defense against attacks launched against me, using the spear haft as a parrying device. Any counterattacks I might launch will be largely ineffective against the armour, although a butt strike to the (unarmoured) boot may break the foot, or at least distract the opponent long enough for a stronger strike with the haft to the face or throat (which, depending on period, may or may not be as heavily armoured as the rest of the man. A fighter wearing a salle will not have the same armour in the face as, say, a full bevoir or ultimately, a sugar loaf helm.) 3. Once that's done, hopefully I'll either be able to attract allies, or move back far enough to drop the point of the spear and bring it to bear in a very lethal fashion. That's pretty much how I'd do it. Either that, or I just described how the Short Haft feat (from the PHBII) works. I'll leave that to the reader to decide. But a long spear in close combat was not near as dangerous as a longsword, if dangerous at all. Agreed, for the reasons I mentioned above. However, it was not useless, as far as that goes (again, see above). A spear does not have reach according to the rules. In addition, I never said a spear is not primarily a piercing weapon. HOWEVER, watch any martial art demostration with a spear and notice several attacks include using the shaft for bludgeoning attacks. In addition, part of learning how to use a weapon is knowing how to adjust ones stance to redirect attacks. Agreed. I too think that the spear should be a double weapon, just like pretty much everything with a haft. Of course, I also think half of the weapons in the table are grossly overweight, and that the bastard sword should be finessible when used in two hands, so I can't be said to not have my opinions on the D&D weapons chart. :) But, really, if we want to keep this within the rules, etc., etc., just take the feat Short Haft from the PHBII. It allows the user, as a swift action usable once per round, to shift grip on a reach weapon, and threaten *either* 5ft or 10ft. Pretty simple, really. strider
Rerednaw 09-29-06, 10:33 AM	Well, i was wondering: why i cant kick someone who passes trough my area while im holdin a bloody reach weapon? Think: its preety simple. Just hold the weapon with one hand and *punch* or *kick* him! Tha same thing aplies for tha bow... See ya! Two reach weapons allow for adjacent attacks. The ubiqitous spiked chain and it's lesser known 1H cousin, the Kusari Gama (DMG page 144-ish). As for kicking...as others have said, you need Imp. Unarm. Strike. Or claws.
calvinNhobbes 09-29-06, 10:36 AM	But, really, if we want to keep this within the rules, etc., etc., just take the feat Short Haft from the PHBII. It allows the user, as a swift action usable once per round, to shift grip on a reach weapon, and threaten *either* 5ft or 10ft. Pretty simple, really. I knew there would be a feat somewhere that would allow it! :D Although I must say I am a little tired of the solution to everything being some feat in some $20-30 book
striderII 09-29-06, 10:40 AM	I knew there would be a feat somewhere that would allow it! :D Although I must say I am a little tired of the solution to everything being some feat in some $20-30 book Agreed. I know people want to bash 2nd Ed's lack of rules, but I for one think that they permitted a certain degree of flexibility that would have solved this particular issue a long time ago. Of course, nothing in the 3.X rules say you *can't* just make up a rule on the spot, but sadly, too many people don't understand that and need a rule for every little thing. *shrug* strider
Danekus 09-29-06, 10:43 AM	The answer to everything is always in another book. :D
demon666fast 09-29-06, 11:58 AM	The quarterstaff example is with a spear (a non-reach two-handed weapon just like a quarterstaff but with a pointy end). It doesn't matter. As I said there are hundreds of types of spears. The D&D spear is not the quarterstaff-with-a-pointy-end type of spear, and because of that it can't be used as a effectively as a double weapon. Reach weapons were made to be used against opponents far way or to prevent them for coming closer. I never said they weren't. Thanks for stating the obvious. You're welcome. Unfortunately, when you state that reach weapons should threat opponents 5ft. away from you, and you said that saying that by not threating they make D&D a poor game model, you are creating another purpose for them in the battlefield. When I said reach weapons were made to attack opponents far way or to prevent them for coming closer, i meant they were made ONLY for that. If it's so obvious, why so you said it is a poor game model? But a long spear in close combat was not near as dangerous as a longsword I never said it was. Once again thanks for changing the topic and stating the obvious. Yes you did. 1) The games says wielding a reach weapon does not allow you to threaten 5 feet away, this is a poor model of reality. If you want a longspear to threat 10ft. and also 5.ft away at the same time, you are making it as dangerous in close combat as a longsword. Of course, you can then discuss the meaning of "dangerous". That's why mixing game terms with real life combat terms creates pointless discussion and subjective confusion. When I said the spear lose its reach, i was refereing to real life "reach" idea, not the game term. Probably your understanding of what is to "threat" a square, "reach", "AoO" is different than mine, and probably from D&D too, since you believe it's a poor game model. You can't attack an opponent 5ft. away from you with a longspear using it the right way. You can use it to attack and threat opponents 5ft. from you, you get -4 to penalty to attack because you are using it the wrong way, improvising and when using the weapon in the wrong way, you obviously is not using the right way, so you don't threat oppents 10ft. away from you, and can't attack them. It's one way or the other, not both at the same time. It's like that on the game and in real life combat. You can use any weapon anyway you want, if you want to use it the ineffective way, you get -4 to attack. D&D's short spears, spear and long spear can be used as double weapons, but they are not made to be used like that and thus get -4 to attack when using them the wrong way. If you wield a longspear and I'm 5ft. from you dancing the macarena, you can't hit me, unless you grab the longspear in a different way so you threaten opponents 5ft. away, and then you can attack me. You get -4 to your attack doing that, but then, you can't attack the other dude 10ft. away you dancing the redowa. It's one or the other, in D&D and in real life combat.
calvinNhobbes 09-29-06, 01:16 PM	It doesn't matter. As I said there are hundreds of types of spears. The D&D spear is not the quarterstaff-with-a-pointy-end type of spear, and because of that it can't be used as a effectively as a double weapon. So you state there are hundreds of types of spears and then ASSUME the D&D spear is a specific type of one of those hundreds of spears that can not be used as a double weapon. I hope you can see the flaw in that logic, especially since other posters have already agreed with me. You're welcome. Unfortunately, when you state that reach weapons should threat opponents 5ft. away from you, and you said that saying that by not threating they make D&D a poor game model, you are creating another purpose for them in the battlefield. When I said reach weapons were made to attack opponents far way or to prevent them for coming closer, i meant they were made ONLY for that. If it's so obvious, why so you said it is a poor game model? As Strider so eloquently explained, and you obviosuly ignored, a hafted weapon can be used in close combat. Your stubborness and ignorance are epic! Yes you did. No I didn't. Please quote the post where I said a long spear is as effective as a long sword in close combat. Once again your elementary reading and comprehension level is made apparent. If you want a longspear to threat 10ft. and also 5.ft away at the same time, you are making it as dangerous in close combat as a longsword. No I am not. To do that I would have to say a long spear used at 5 feet does 1d8 damage, 19-20/x2 without penalty. I never said that. I ONLY said a long spear should threaten at 5 ft (ie. allow AOO). I never said how much damage, threat range, or attack penalties it should receive. Since the rules don't cover it specifically, I've ruled it does 1d4, x2, bludgeon with a -4 attack penalty. Hmmm, I could be wrong but that does not seem as effective as a long sword. You can't attack an opponent 5ft. away from you with a longspear using it the right way. I never said you could. Unfortunately your poor reading comprehension can't seem to figure this out. You can use it to attack and threat opponents 5ft. from you, you get -4 to penalty to attack because you are using it the wrong way, improvising and when using the weapon in the wrong way, Once agian I have never disagreed with this logic yet somehow you think I have. Please read my posts again. you obviously is not using the right way, so you don't threat oppents 10ft. away from you, and can't attack them. It's one way or the other, not both at the same time. It's like that on the game and in real life combat. I agree that is how it is in the game, and disagree that is how real combat works. Strider has already provided a reasonable comabt scenario. If you choose to ignore that is your perogative. You can use any weapon anyway you want, if you want to use it the ineffective way, you get -4 to attack. D&D's short spears, spear and long spear can be used as double weapons, but they are not made to be used like that and thus get -4 to attack when using them the wrong way. This is incorrect. There are currently no rules I am aware in the SRD that state spears of any kind can be used a double weapons. The improvised weapons rules are for using items that are not normally weapons like crowbars or table leg. If you wield a longspear and I'm 5ft. from you dancing the macarena, you can't hit me, unless you grab the longspear in a different way so you threaten opponents 5ft. away, and then you can attack me. You have now changed your argument to agree with me. That is what I have been saying the entire time. You initial argument was that a long spear could never be used for an AOO of someone 5 feet away. For some reason you insist on adding this "different way" modifier to your argument but the final result is the same. You agree with me that a long spear can be used as an improvised bludgeoning weapon to make an AOO against an adjacent opponent? Yes? Because that is what I've been saying. But notice how this comment contradicts this comment you made in the SAME post: When I said reach weapons were made to attack opponents far way or to prevent them for coming closer, i meant they were made ONLY for that. So which is it? Can it ONLY be used at 10 feet, or can is be used a 5 feet. You've said both. You seem to be arguing both sides of the debate. Please pick one and stick with it or concede. but then, you can't attack the other dude 10ft. away you dancing the redowa. It's one or the other, in D&D and in real life combat. I disagree. See the example strider gave.
striderII 09-29-06, 01:33 PM	Let me also say this, about our hypothetical dancing fellows. With the exception of the D&D rules, or rather a strict interpretation of them, there is no reason that I, as the hypothetical longspear wielder, can't just go ahead and sweep their legs with whatever part of the longspear hits them. But a strict reading of the rules means that I can't make a trip attack with a longspear, especially to an opponent 5ft. away. So yes, I believe that in instances like this, the D&D combat rules are poor. However, I believe the answer is in *less* rules, rather than more. Allow me to explain. First, I hope I don't engender a "system war" over which system is better at what, because this is just my opinion here. Anyway, D&D has what - 40 pages or more of combat rules? And we still have arguments like this one. Conversely, this very situation we're discussing in this thread can be handled much more simply in, say, White Wolf's WoD system. In that system, we'd simply add (again, going by our hypothetical fight of, say, me against two dancing fools) my Strength stat + my Weaponry stat + the Spear's stat, for a pool. If I happen to specialize in the spear, that'll add a die to the pool. The ST can then add or subtract dice based on the situation. Maybe he takes away two dice because the dancers are really close to me, and that represents a certain degree of clumsiness in my attack. So, the final dice pool calculation would come up to: Strength + Weaponry + Specialization + Spear - situational modifier (2). Then, I'd roll however many dice I have in that pool, and count successes. The dancers would probably get a Dexterity + Athletics to resist, or maybe my pool would be penalized by their Defense - however the ST wanted to handle it. Either way, if they fail (with the check), or I still hit (against their Defense), I win. It's much simpler, in my opinion, although it does leave some things up to the ST, which just isn't some people's cup of tea. Anyway, sorry for going off track. For those who don't care about other systems, just read the top part, about the tripping and all that. strider
calvinNhobbes 09-29-06, 01:34 PM	As an exercise demon666fast, try this. Get a 10 foot pole and hold as you would a long spear. Have someone stand 10 feet away and make a stabbing motion at them. Now have them come within 5 feet. Without, changing your grip, swing the long spear in an arc. Is it possible to hit the person? Yes. Is it as effective as if they were 10 feet away? No. Is it as effective as a long sword? No. But once again is it possible? YES! That is all I have been saying, but according to the D&D rules and you this scenario is not possible.
striderII 09-29-06, 01:39 PM	As an exercise demon666fast, try this. Get a 10 foot pole and hold as you would a long spear. Have someone stand 10 feet away and make a stabbing motion at them. Now have them come within 5 feet. Without, changing your grip, swing the long spear in an arc. Is it possible to hit the person? Yes. Is it as effective as if they were 10 feet away? No. Is it as effective as a long sword? No. But once again is it possible? YES! Agreed. Also, if you don't mind lawsuits (or you have very understanding friends), when your target moves within 5 feet of you, strike their knee with the butt end of that pole, then when they bend over in pain, step back and to the side and club them in the head. Not only will you see that it's an effective tactic, you might start to get an idea of how brutal and nasty combat really is - as well as the understanding that you use a weapon any way you have to in order to win. DISCLAIMER: I do *not* actually advocate striking people with sticks, although if that's your thing, I won't stop you. This is a thinking exercise, try not to be like those guys in the Jackass movie. Really - you'll thank me for it. strider
fatal error 09-29-06, 01:55 PM	So yes, I believe that in instances like this, the D&D combat rules are poor. However, I believe the answer is in *less* rules, rather than more. Allow me to explain. First, I hope I don't engender a "system war" over which system is better at what, because this is just my opinion here. Anyway, D&D has what - 40 pages or more of combat rules? And we still have arguments like this one. Conversely, this very situation we're discussing in this thread can be handled much more simply in, say, White Wolf's WoD system. In that system, we'd simply add (again, going by our hypothetical fight of, say, me against two dancing fools) my Strength stat + my Weaponry stat + the Spear's stat, for a pool. If I happen to specialize in the spear, that'll add a die to the pool. The ST can then add or subtract dice based on the situation. Maybe he takes away two dice because the dancers are really close to me, and that represents a certain degree of clumsiness in my attack. So, the final dice pool calculation would come up to: Strength + Weaponry + Specialization + Spear - situational modifier (2). Then, I'd roll however many dice I have in that pool, and count successes. The dancers would probably get a Dexterity + Athletics to resist, or maybe my pool would be penalized by their Defense - however the ST wanted to handle it. Either way, if they fail (with the check), or I still hit (against their Defense), I win. It's much simpler, in my opinion, although it does leave some things up to the ST, which just isn't some people's cup of tea. strider This is only because many DMs think the D&D rules set is all-inclusive. Your white-wolf solution is the same thing a DM could do in D&D, "-4 to attacks". Except, this is all about attacks of opportunity, which I wouldn't even be making in White Wolf (if I recall my vampire game correctly). Again, the only reason White Wolf would work better in this instance is because their rules essentially beg for constant arbitrative modifiers by the Storyteller, rather then the less often needed modifications of the D&D rules by DMs.
striderII 09-29-06, 02:01 PM	This is only because many DMs think the D&D rules set is all-inclusive. Your white-wolf solution is the same thing a DM could do in D&D, "-4 to attacks". Except, this is all about attacks of opportunity, which I wouldn't even be making in White Wolf (if I recall my vampire game correctly). Again, the only reason White Wolf would work better in this instance is because their rules essentially beg for constant arbitrative modifiers by the Storyteller, rather then the less often needed modifications of the D&D rules by DMs. Well, what you see as a weakness, I see as a strength, personally. Specifically, I don't want to spend the time to look up rules on tripping, grappling, bull rushing, or anything of the sort - I'd rather the DM just make a ruling, and move on. Others don't like that - and that's their perogative. Again, I wasn't trying to start a "system war" - just wanted to point out that more rules for things wasn't always a good thing, in my opinion. strider
Kimokeo 09-29-06, 04:19 PM	Something else that makes no sense. Take fighter with reach weapon. 1st level. Str 18 Dex 18. Can attack once a round with a +4 bonus to hit. His BAB is +1. Say his reach weapon is masterwork, so +1 more. So, +6 to hit. Give him Combat reflexes. How many attacks does he get? One. He still can only attack once. His opponents approach him and stop at the 10' marker. Now this: All his opponents come within the 10' marker. Bang, he gets Four more attacks with his reach weapon. That's 5 attacks he gets. But, normally he only gets 1. Logic? no, but then again, it's a game - not real.
striderII 09-29-06, 04:24 PM	Logic? no, but then again, it's a game - not real. Thanks - we've noticed. Now, if you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, why are you poking at it? Doesn't make sense to me, really. If you have that much free time on your hands, then bless your heart, I suppose, but otherwise, let's not waste the bandwidth, hm? strider
Kimokeo 09-29-06, 04:34 PM	It is constructive but you failed to see the obvious. You can find many aspects of the game to question reality and the answer is always the same: it's a game. Houserule it as you like. I have and so have many other DM's. Not all that wander are lost. Well, some are.
striderII 09-29-06, 04:39 PM	It is constructive but you failed to see the obvious. You can find many aspects of the game to question reality and the answer is always the same: it's a game. Houserule it as you like. I have and so have many other DM's. Not all that wander are lost. Well, some are. Ah, I see. I took your post to mean the exact opposite of your "just house rule it" tack. I took it to mean the same thing I see every time I see "it's just a game" - to whit, that "it's just a game, it doesn't have to make sense, don't inject reality into my game, wah, wah, wah!". So, if "just house rule it" was your intent, my apologies - although, to be fair, you could have just come out and said it that way the first time. :) If that wasn't your intent, and your intent was to whine and cry about realism in the game, then I'll stand by my original reply. ;) strider
calvinNhobbes 09-29-06, 04:41 PM	How many attacks does he get? One. He still can only attack once. His opponents approach him and stop at the 10' marker. Now this: All his opponents come within the 10' marker. Bang, he gets Four more attacks with his reach weapon. That's 5 attacks he gets. But, normally he only gets 1. Logic? no, but then again, it's a game - not real. You have to remember that the one attack you get during your turn is supposed to represent more than just a single swing or thrust. It is supposed to represent you positioning for a clean attack and avoiding your opponents attacks. An AOO is different. It is supposed to be a free attack you get when your opponent drops their defense. It is not perfect, but I would say it does add a little more realism.
Kimokeo 09-29-06, 04:44 PM	Some are also touched by the frost.
KurenaiYami 09-29-06, 04:57 PM	Well AOO assumes one attack equals one swing, so that IS the case sometimes in the game. Not really. AoO is taking advantage of a hole in your opponent's defenses because they do something that distracts them from the battle. You've been poking at them and missing the whole time, but they dropped their guard, allowing you to connect.
Xeviat-DM 09-29-06, 05:00 PM	The Spear, a 1d8 20x3 two-handed simple weapon with a 20 ft. throwing range, is different than a Quarterstaff, a 1d6 20/x2 two-handed simple double weapon. You need improved Unarmed Strike to make an unarmed strike as an Attack of Opportunity, because you normally don't threaten with unarmed attacks and because you should not be able to perform an action that provokes an attack of opportunity with an attack of opportunity (otherwise order of operations get strange quickly). You may have seen eastern spear techniques in movies or martial arts demonstrations. First off, that is probably a longspear, as it has reach and cannot be thrown. Second off, these maneuvers are not an inherrant property of the weapon, this is specialized training. In D&D, specialized training is represented by feats. A feat exists in PHB 2 called short haft, which lets you, as a swift action, switch your grip on a reach weapon so that it is not a reach weapon. There is also a feat in CW called spinning halbierd which lets you strike with the butt as a TWFing attack. Again, special training. As for the double sword (a bladed staff) and the dire flail (a three section staff mainly) being unrealistic ... well I think I just made my points.
Xeviat-DM 09-29-06, 05:02 PM	Not really. AoO is taking advantage of a hole in your opponent's defenses because they do something that distracts them from the battle. You've been poking at them and missing the whole time, but they dropped their guard, allowing you to connect. Which is why you don't get AoOs with ranged weapons. Sure, you see them drop their guard, but you haven't been shooting 6 to 12 arrows at them, while with a weapon you are attempting that many strikes.
calvinNhobbes 09-29-06, 06:27 PM	Not really. AoO is taking advantage of a hole in your opponent's defenses because they do something that distracts them from the battle. You've been poking at them and missing the whole time, but they dropped their guard, allowing you to connect. Which is why you don't get AoOs with ranged weapons. Sure, you see them drop their guard, but you haven't been shooting 6 to 12 arrows at them, while with a weapon you are attempting that many strikes. That makes more sense than the AOO = one attack. You learn new things everyday! :D The Spear, a 1d8 20x3 two-handed simple weapon with a 20 ft. throwing range, is different than a Quarterstaff, a 1d6 20/x2 two-handed simple double weapon. That's great and all, now explain why you shouldn't be able to attack with a spear as a 1d8/1d6 double weapon? You may have seen eastern spear techniques in movies or martial arts demonstrations. First off, that is probably a longspear, as it has reach and cannot be thrown. So you are saying a long spear should be usable as a double weapon? I must also say the ability to be thrown or not as defined by games rules is irrelevant to whether or not a weapon can be used as a double weapon. Second off, these maneuvers are not an inherrant property of the weapon, this is specialized training. In D&D, specialized training is represented by feats. A feat exists in PHB 2 called short haft, which lets you, as a swift action, switch your grip on a reach weapon so that it is not a reach weapon. There is also a feat in CW called spinning halbierd which lets you strike with the butt as a TWFing attack. That is great to know the game designers have already addressed the errors found in the core rules. But that means these manuveurs should also be possible without a feat with appropriate penalties. They should not simply be impossible to attempt. In addition, D&D gets overly focused on feats to fix combat. By your logic you should need a feat to throw a dagger without penalties. Think about it. It is much easier to stab someone with a knife than accurately throw one. Yet the game makes no distinction for this except the use of dex instead of strength. A certain proficiency in a weapon is assumed in the game. However, the level of proficiency is never defined. Therefore we encounter situations where it is easier to throw a spear 20 feet and hit someone than it is to hit the same person adjacent to you with the haft of the same spear.
striderII 09-29-06, 07:02 PM	The Spear, a 1d8 20x3 two-handed simple weapon with a 20 ft. throwing range, is different than a Quarterstaff, a 1d6 20/x2 two-handed simple double weapon. I don't believe anyone has said anything to the contrary. I'd suggest that it's blatantly obvious to everyone involved that they are, in fact, two different weapons. You may have seen eastern spear techniques in movies or martial arts demonstrations. First off, that is probably a longspear, as it has reach and cannot be thrown. Second off, these maneuvers are not an inherrant property of the weapon, this is specialized training. That may be, but there are some very interesting similarities between "Eastern" and "Western" weapon techniques. Sure, the Eastern styles are typically more flashy and so forth (although a lot of that is for "show", and isn't necessarily used in a battlefield scenario), but the basics of the techniques, and the methodology behind the techniques, are the same. And I agree that just slapping a few extra feats into the game is more of a bandaid than a true fix. strider
Balor von Balorvitch 09-29-06, 07:07 PM	Dudes enough of the haft spear discussion just wear a spiked guantlet and move on! Oh and on the issue of orc double axe 1 word, Batlif Baby! :D
Danekus 09-29-06, 07:11 PM	My brain hurts.:uh-huh:
Xeviat-DM 09-29-06, 07:36 PM	That's great and all, now explain why you shouldn't be able to attack with a spear as a 1d8/1d6 double weapon? Because a 1d8 20x3/1d6 20x2 double weapon is not a simple weapon. It's not quite an exotic weapon (a 1d8 20x3/1d8 20x3 is), so maybe it's a martial weapon. A martial weapon requires one feat more than a simple weapon does, so taking a feat to gain a double weapon attack with a spear is fine. Huzah. So you are saying a long spear should be usable as a double weapon? I must also say the ability to be thrown or not as defined by games rules is irrelevant to whether or not a weapon can be used as a double weapon. A longspear is not a throwing weapon. You can throw a non-throwing weapon with a range increment of 10 feet with a -4 penalty. I guess you could take this a step further and say you could wield a spear as a double weapon if you choose to accept a -4 penalty on all your attacks, in addition to the TWFing penalties. That is great to know the game designers have already addressed the errors found in the core rules. But that means these manuveurs should also be possible without a feat with appropriate penalties. They should not simply be impossible to attempt. I'd love to play in your games. So I can use Maximize Spell at a penalty without the feat, or whirlwind attack, spring attack, or cleave? Dangerous territory this is. In addition, D&D gets overly focused on feats to fix combat. By your logic you should need a feat to throw a dagger without penalties. Think about it. Actually I have; the dagger, with its throwing ability, is more powerful than other simple weapons. Quickly compare it to the club; both can be thrown the same distance, and 1d4 19x2 compares to 1d6 20x2. The problem is that the dagger is light and the club is one-handed, thus the dagger should be weaker than the club. So yes, the dagger shouldn't be able to be thrown without a feat (if you want a throwing dagger, use a dart). It is much easier to stab someone with a knife than accurately throw one. Yet the game makes no distinction for this except the use of dex instead of strength. A certain proficiency in a weapon is assumed in the game. However, the level of proficiency is never defined. Therefore we encounter situations where it is easier to throw a spear 20 feet and hit someone than it is to hit the same person adjacent to you with the haft of the same spear. I never said someone couldn't hit someone with the haft of their spear. It's going to bring up penalties for wielding an improvised weapon (a -4 penalty to hit). Because you lack proficiency in said improvised weapon, I'm going to say it's safe to say that you shouldn't be able to make an AoO with it (you aren't trained to use the weapon in such a way). So yeah, it is much easier to wield a weapon, or throw a weapon, in the way the weapon was designed to be used. Improvisation is fine, but the improvised weapon penalties must be used. We've told you how it's done in the rules, we've told you what you could add to the rules to do this in a balanced way. You want to take away the primary drawback of wielding a reach weapon without spending a feat to do it; you can't have your cake and eat it to.
Moon-Lancer 09-29-06, 08:06 PM	everyone knows the feat in dragon compendium that lets you threaten and attack with a reach weapon to creatures that are adjacent to yourself right? all it takes is weapon focus and you take a -2 on the attack if they are adjacent. I think that solves all the realist oh no issues. "Its harder to do, but it can be done" should be satisfied. its called Shorten Grip, and is much better then the one in phb2... ug. Normaly i would just say, why on earth?? just use spiked armor, but, one thing... dervish, you cant dervish dance and attack with the spiked armor, and spiked guantlet. This was the only solution i could find to keep bad guys and bay, and keep them from doing everything under the sun like grapples and stuff.
demon666fast 09-29-06, 08:18 PM	As an exercise demon666fast, try this. Get a 10 foot pole and hold as you would a long spear. Have someone stand 10 feet away and make a stabbing motion at them. Now have them come within 5 feet. Without, changing your grip, swing the long spear in an arc. Is it possible to hit the person? Yes. Is it as effective as if they were 10 feet away? No. Is it as effective as a long sword? No. But once again is it possible? YES! That is all I have been saying, but according to the D&D rules and you this scenario is not possible. It is possible, but you get -4 penalty doing that. The penalty represents the exact ineffectiveness you refered to. I don't think that "swinging it in an arc" would be the way to do it. If it's that how you imagine it, you surely never tried to hit someone that way with a 10 ft. wood stick. So you state there are hundreds of types of spears and then ASSUME the D&D spear is a specific type of one of those hundreds of spears that can not be used as a double weapon. I hope you can see the flaw in that logic, especially since other posters have already agreed with me. My logic is that, if the D&D spear was the quarterstaff-with-a-pointy-end type, you could then use the quartestaff as a throwing weapon with a 20ft. range, and that's not the case, that's not what the designer had in mind. Also, my logic could be even simpler, if the D&D spear was that type of spear you wanted, why then the rules don't say you can use it effectively as a double weapon? Don't you think designers knew that many types of spears and chosed the one they liked and though was balanced to be in the game? What's your logic in saying that the D&D spear is the type you could use as a double weapon effectively? The drawings in the Equipment chapter? I don't believe anyone has said anything to the contrary. I'd suggest that it's blatantly obvious to everyone involved that they are, in fact, two different weapons. The schizophrenic guy (it's just a joke about his nickname) keeps saying that. I have to agree, there ARE spears that are just quarterstaffs with pointy ends, but in D&D that's not the case, the spear there is not that type, they are meant to be two different weapons. The D&D spear is not the type of spear that can be used effectively as a double weapon, and BTW, I know that because the weapon's description tells me that. Since there are real world spears that can't be used effectively as double weapons, I see no problems in D&D designers chosing that type. You can't threat a guy 5ft. away and a guy 10ft. away with a long spear at the same time, in D&D and in real life combat. Maybe a special style of fighting, represented as a feat, but warriors that are just proficient with a longspear can't do that. That's why pikermen used to carry close combat weapons with them.
demon666fast 09-29-06, 08:36 PM	No I didn't. Please quote the post where I said a long spear is as effective as a long sword in close combat. Once again your elementary reading and comprehension level is made apparent. I never said you could. Unfortunately your poor reading comprehension can't seem to figure this out. here 1) The games says wielding a reach weapon does not allow you to threaten 5 feet away, this is a poor model of reality. When you say D&D is a poor game model by not allowing long spears to threaten squares 5.ft. away, you are assuming they should be able to do so. If you want them to do so, you are implying that long spears are effective in close combat as longswords, and you are also implying that this would be the right way, the 'realistic' way to fight with a long spear. Maybe you are not really implying anything, but that's what would happen if you let reach weapons also threaten the adjacent squares in conjunction with the 10ft squares. BTW, D&D does not allow reach weapons to threaten 5 feet away when you are fighting with them the right, because that's what happened when real warriors used them the right way, they did not threaten the opponents 5 ft away from them.
striderII 09-29-06, 09:32 PM	The drawings in the Equipment chapter? Those drawings are, to put not too fine a point on it, *crap*. The illustrator, for almost all cases, clearly has little idea what a weapon looks like at all. The D&D spear is not the type of spear that can be used effectively as a double weapon, and BTW, I know that because the weapon's description tells me that. Since there are real world spears that can't be used effectively as double weapons, I see no problems in D&D designers chosing that type. Well, I at least disagree. So, if I want to have the spear be allowed to be used as a double weapon in my campaigns, guess what? Yeah, you guessed it. The "rules" in the books are guidelines. Not a single one of us has to use all of those rules, or any of them, for that matter. Honest. You can't threat a guy 5ft. away and a guy 10ft. away with a long spear at the same time, in D&D and in real life combat. Maybe a special style of fighting, represented as a feat, but warriors that are just proficient with a longspear can't do that. That's why pikermen used to carry close combat weapons with them. Actually, I'll bet you I can give you a scenario in which I *do* threaten an opponent 5ft away from me, *and* a completely different opponent 10ft away from me. Now, note here that by "threaten" I don't mean that I'm necessarily in a position to strike opponents with the tip of the spear. But, if you read my scenario above (which I'm assuming you didn't, because you still don't seem to understand), I think it would be readily apparent this is the case. As far as my combat scenario above - and please, go read it (slowly) - it is *hardly* a case of a "special style of fighting". It's something that anyone even marginally proficient with the weapon can do. I know that because I'm only marginally proficient with the weapon - rapiers and swords are more my thing. I don't have as much skill with a spear. When you say D&D is a poor game model by not allowing long spears to threaten squares 5.ft. away, you are assuming they should be able to do so. Read my combat scenario, above. While I'll admit some extrapolation is required from that scenario (as it isn't precisely for this reason), I think it's a reasonable representation of how a longspear could threaten close-range combatants. If you want them to do so, you are implying that long spears are effective in close combat as longswords, I don't believe anyone is saying anything of the sort. Saying something *can* perform an action is not saying that it can do that action as well or better than something else. That would be like me saying "well, I can tow a trailer with a Ford Ranger, so it's clearly as good at towing as a Dodge Ram 2500". :rolleyes: and you are also implying that this would be the right way, the 'realistic' way to fight with a long spear. I hate to keep tooting my own horn (oh, who am I fooling?), but go read my combat scenario again. That is how you fight close in with a spear. Look - no spear fighter *intends* to fight in close. It's not the *ideal* way to fight with a spear, and warriors in mass formation carry backup weapons because the scenario I presented does -not- work while in formation. You simply don't have the room for it. Even then, yes, you carry a backup weapon because they work -better- in close combat. But to say that a spear can't be used close in is just silly. strider
Moon-Lancer 09-29-06, 11:19 PM	Those drawings are, to put not too fine a point on it, *crap*. The illustrator, for almost all cases, clearly has little idea what a weapon looks like at all. I agree I always find it funny when people argue rules and mention something about the pictures. yes lets base our rules on commissioned art. IF I made decisions based of wotc art I would have never played a killoren. Those things are pretty ugly, yet the text says nothing like that. Never let d&d's art steel your imagination… its just bad roleplaying from the getgo.
Geogoose 09-30-06, 12:03 AM	If a player of mine wanted a Spear which could be used quarterstaff-esque as a double weapon I'd let them. I'd also remove the throw property and bump it up to martial weapon. And to the OP- Like many have posted, take Improved Unarmed Strike and you can threaten at 5' even while using reach weapon.
demon666fast 09-30-06, 01:05 AM	Those drawings are, to put not too fine a point on it, *crap*. The illustrator, for almost all cases, clearly has little idea what a weapon looks like at all. huhhh I was being ironic.... sorry if I confused you. Well, I at least disagree. So, if I want to have the spear be allowed to be used as a double weapon in my campaigns, guess what? Yeah, you guessed it. The "rules" in the books are guidelines. Not a single one of us has to use all of those rules, or any of them, for that matter. Honest. The way you play your game and the rules you use is absolute irrelevant to this particular discussion. We're talking about the rules the way they are written in the PHB and their relation to real life combat and weapons. You can make a spear a double weapon in your game, but it's just another type of spear, not the one presented there. Actually, I'll bet you I can give you a scenario in which I *do* threaten an opponent 5ft away from me, *and* a completely different opponent 10ft away from me. I bet you can't. Read my combat scenario, above. While I'll admit some extrapolation is required from that scenario (as it isn't precisely for this reason), I think it's a reasonable representation of how a longspear could threaten close-range combatants. The long spear can threaten opponents 5ft. away and attack them. If you strike someone's knee cap with the butt of your longspear and then his head, the pointy end is pointing towards up all the time, and you are not threatening the squares 10ft. away. Look - no spear fighter *intends* to fight in close. It's not the *ideal* way to fight with a spear As I said you can attack someone 5ft away from you with a long spear, that's the fourth or fifth time i say it. But as you said, it not the *ideal* way to fight with a long spear, and in the game it is represented as a -4 penalty to attack roll and you lose the weapon's reach for that round. Tell me, if you want the longspear to threaten everybody 5 ft and 10 ft away from you all the time, and to attack all of them with no penalty at all, why wouldn't be *ideal* to fight with it in close combat?
striderII 09-30-06, 10:05 AM	huhhh I was being ironic.... sorry if I confused you. Tone does not convey well over the internet. That's what smileys and the like are for. We're talking about the rules the way they are written in the PHB and their relation to real life combat and weapons. You can make a spear a double weapon in your game, but it's just another type of spear, not the one presented there. Really? So, you were one of the developers/writers, or you know them personally so that you know precisely what kind of spear they meant? And - that rather flies in the face of the fact that many of the weapon stats are, for lack of a better term, "modular". If you want stats for a stilleto (a weapon not represented in the weapons table in the PHB), what are you going to use? The stats for a dagger, I'll bet. The spear stats do not represent any *particular* spear, they represent a "generic" spear-like weapon. Stating otherwise does not help your case at all. I bet you can't. I bet I already did. Oh, right - you don't consider a strike with the haft to count as "threatening" an opponent. Of course, that's because you - by your own implication - don't know how real combat works, or that any moment of distraction or clumsiness is potentially fatal. The long spear can threaten opponents 5ft. away and attack them. If you strike someone's knee cap with the butt of your longspear and then his head, the pointy end is pointing towards up all the time, and you are not threatening the squares 10ft. away. On the strike to the kneecap, I'll give you that. The point will be at too great an angle to simultaneously thrust against another opponent. But the strike to the head - you can keep the spear haft at an almost horizontal orientation (depending on relative heights), and therefore keep the point oriented roughly near an opponent. Whether or not they're actually "threatened" by the point depends on their bravery and your reflexes. As I said you can attack someone 5ft away from you with a long spear, that's the fourth or fifth time i say it. But as you said, it not the *ideal* way to fight with a long spear, and in the game it is represented as a -4 penalty to attack roll and you lose the weapon's reach for that round. I don't think anyone was arguing against the -4 penalty or anything of the sort. I believe the original argument was whether or not the longspear threatened folks at 5ft, which you plainly disagree with, in the interest of attacks of opportunity. Tell me, if you want the longspear to threaten everybody 5 ft and 10 ft away from you all the time, and to attack all of them with no penalty at all, why wouldn't be *ideal* to fight with it in close combat? I was speaking from a RL combat perspective. It isn't *ideal*, because an armoured opponent just isn't going to be taking any kind of immediately lethal damage from a strike with the haft. It is certainly capable of -setting up- that kind of strike, however, as I already described in my combat scenario, above. Besides, I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the Short Haft feat at least twice, and someone else mentioned it as well. So why is this argument continuing, exactly? strider
calvinNhobbes 09-30-06, 01:07 PM	Because a 1d8 20x3/1d6 20x2 double weapon is not a simple weapon. It's not quite an exotic weapon (a 1d8 20x3/1d8 20x3 is), so maybe it's a martial weapon. A martial weapon requires one feat more than a simple weapon does, so taking a feat to gain a double weapon attack with a spear is fine. Huzah. Simple, martial, and exotic are game terms (and very poor ones at that) for describing weapons. They have little to no realistic foundation. The argument is not whether a 1d8/1d6 simple weapon is balanced, but why a spear should not be a double weapon. I personally think many weapons are illogical. Example: why does a club do 1d6 but a dagger do 1d4. Does anyone honestly think a one handed wood club should be more deadly that a 1 foot dagger. I don't, which is why I "nerf" the club to 1d4. In addition, I think the spear damage and critical ranges do not correlate well with other weapons. Why does a spear do 1d8 while a short sword does 1d6? I don't think a spear should do more than a sword. In addition, why does a spear threat range resemble that of an axe or warhammer instead of a sword. In my games I use the spear as a 1d6/1d4 19x2/20x2 simple weapon. A longspear is not a throwing weapon. You can throw a non-throwing weapon with a range increment of 10 feet with a -4 penalty. I guess you could take this a step further and say you could wield a spear as a double weapon if you choose to accept a -4 penalty on all your attacks, in addition to the TWFing penalties. With RAW yes. For just one second pretend you are no longer in a game but the real world. You are equally proficient with a quarterstaff and a spear. You can whirl the staff around, attacking with quickly with both ends. So why can't you do the same with a spear? Does it logically make any sense why you shouldn't be able to? Forget what the "rules" say. The rules suck. Be creative, use your own mind. I'd love to play in your games. So I can use Maximize Spell at a penalty without the feat, or whirlwind attack, spring attack, or cleave? Dangerous territory this is. Nice off topic statement. First, magic does not exist in the real world for comparison so that example is pointless. Second, the others are specific combat manuveurs usable with any weapon that go beyond basic understanding of the weapon. They are a type of comabt style not weapon proficiency. Actually I have; the dagger, with its throwing ability, is more powerful than other simple weapons. Quickly compare it to the club; both can be thrown the same distance, and 1d4 19x2 compares to 1d6 20x2. The problem is that the dagger is light and the club is one-handed, thus the dagger should be weaker than the club. So yes, the dagger shouldn't be able to be thrown without a feat (if you want a throwing dagger, use a dart). Oh my god! A houserule! The very thought warps my fragile little mind! ;) I never said someone couldn't hit someone with the haft of their spear. Never said you did. I was refering to demon666fast. Because you lack proficiency in said improvised weapon, I'm going to say it's safe to say that you shouldn't be able to make an AoO with it (you aren't trained to use the weapon in such a way). That is an assumption of what the game means by proficiency. How do you know being proficient in a hafted weapons means you were not trained to use the haft (even if less effectively). It brings me back to the quarterstaff/spear comparison. How can someonen be proficient enough with a quarterstaff to use it as a double weapon, but then not proficient enough with a spear to do the same. So yeah, it is much easier to wield a weapon, or throw a weapon, in the way the weapon was designed to be used. Improvisation is fine, but the improvised weapon penalties must be used. I have never argued otherwise for hafted reach weapons. My issue is with hafted non-reach weapons like a spear. Using the haft is not really improvisation but another method of attacking with it. It would be like saying you can stab with a dagger, but it you trying and slash you get a -4 penalty because it was not meant to be used that way. We've told you how it's done in the rules, we've told you what you could add to the rules to do this in a balanced way. You want to take away the primary drawback of wielding a reach weapon without spending a feat to do it; you can't have your cake and eat it to. You must be young. Technology and video games have destroyed what little imagination you have left. The books are only guildlines not the word of god.
calvinNhobbes 09-30-06, 01:18 PM	It is possible, but you get -4 penalty doing that. The penalty represents the exact ineffectiveness you refered to. I don't think that "swinging it in an arc" would be the way to do it. If it's that how you imagine it, you surely never tried to hit someone that way with a 10 ft. wood stick. I never said a penalty would not be appropriate for using a reach weapon this way. Once again your stunted reading comprehension has stalled this discussion. In addition, I never said swining it in a arc was an "effective" method of attack. HOWEVER, it can easily be done with no additional training in real life, but in D&D it does. Are you finally seeing this inconsistancy? My logic is that, if the D&D spear was the quarterstaff-with-a-pointy-end type, you could then use the quartestaff as a throwing weapon with a 20ft. range, and that's not the case, that's not what the designer had in mind. I see no problem with a player wanting to throw their quarterstaff like a spear. It could even hit, but I would rule it does no damage. Also, my logic could be even simpler, if the D&D spear was that type of spear you wanted, why then the rules don't say you can use it effectively as a double weapon? Don't you think designers knew that many types of spears and chosed the one they liked and though was balanced to be in the game? No, I don't think the game designers know much of anything about realistic modeling. They are great at making a balanced fun fantasy game. But their ability to model realistic combat is subpar at best. What's your logic in saying that the D&D spear is the type you could use as a double weapon effectively? The drawings in the Equipment chapter? The drawings in the PHB are horrid. I have to agree, there ARE spears that are just quarterstaffs with pointy ends, but in D&D that's not the case, the spear there is not that type, they are meant to be two different weapons. The D&D spear is not the type of spear that can be used effectively as a double weapon, and BTW, I know that because the weapon's description tells me that. Since there are real world spears that can't be used effectively as double weapons, I see no problems in D&D designers chosing that type. You must also be young. People like you make older gamers cry. No imagination, no ability to think outside the box. Very, very sad. You can't threat a guy 5ft. away and a guy 10ft. away with a long spear at the same time, in D&D and in real life combat. You have already admitted you have no real combat experiecne with spear fighting therefore this statement is pure ignorance.
calvinNhobbes 09-30-06, 01:32 PM	here Quote: No I didn't. Please quote the post where I said a long spear is as effective as a long sword in close combat. Once again your elementary reading and comprehension level is made apparent. Quote: I never said you could. Unfortunately your poor reading comprehension can't seem to figure this out. here Quote: 1) The games says wielding a reach weapon does not allow you to threaten 5 feet away, this is a poor model of reality. How is saying a reach weapon should threaten 5 feet way mean the same thing as saying using a reach weapon in close combat is as effective as a long sword? I'll help you out since it obvious you have extreme difficulting in reading english, it doesn't. At no point did I ever say the haft of a reach weapon in close comabt is as effective as a long sword. Thank you for proving my point on the inadequacies of your reading abilities. This thread would be half the length if you took the time to read what others actaully wrote. When you say D&D is a poor game model by not allowing long spears to threaten squares 5.ft. away, you are assuming they should be able to do so. No I am not assuming. It is a fact that can be demonstrated in simulated combat with a 10 foot pole. You are the one assuming they can not be based on the rules of a game. If you want them to do so, you are implying that long spears are effective in close combat as longswords, and you are also implying that this would be the right way, the 'realistic' way to fight with a long spear. Once again you are wrong. I have stated over and over and over again that I think a hafted weapon (without an extra feat) should threaten 5 feet but gets a -4 attack, does 1d4 bludgeon damage with a 20x2 crit range. How is this as effective as a long sword with no penalty, 1d8 slashing and 19x2 crit range. Let me once again help you, it isn't!!!!!!! Maybe you are not really implying anything, but that's what would happen if you let reach weapons also threaten the adjacent squares in conjunction with the 10ft squares. Really? Letting reach weapon get AOO agaisnt adjacent targets at -4 penalty for 1d4, 20x2 damage will completely unbalance the game and everyone will want to use long spears instead of great swords? Really? Is that what you are arguing? I had no idea you were such an incredibly game designer. BTW, D&D does not allow reach weapons to threaten 5 feet away when you are fighting with them the right, because that's what happened when real warriors used them the right way, they did not threaten the opponents 5 ft away from them. Oh you are an expert on spear fighting again just like all those game designers. Hate to burst your bubble kid, but D&D game designers are not gods. They are fallable. Ever think they did it because it was simpler than trying to design a realistic weapon system?