[Polearms] Replace reach restriction with penalty


Equipment and Description


Short version:
Polearms can be used in close quarters just fine. They just don't benefit from added momentum (known also as torque).

The longer version:
Restriction of reach for polearms is very artificial. They can be easily swung at the target 5' away from you. The only thing you may be losing is the fact, that since you're using less of a reach, you lose some momentum and consequently your blows may be less powerful.

Solution:
Introduce attack or damage penalty for 5' range fighting (-2 to attack, for example). Given that

Alexi Goranov wrote:

Use of the Medieval Poleaxe

The poleaxe is generally accepted to have been the knightly weapon of choice for dismounted combat.[...]

it stands to a reach to lift the restriction and replace it with this penalty.

Regards,
Ruemere

Dark Archive

Check out this thread.

Here

Grand Lodge

ruemere wrote:

The longer version:

Restriction of reach for polearms is very artificial. They can be easily swung at the target 5' away from you. The only thing you may be losing is the fact, that since you're using less of a reach, you lose some momentum and consequently your blows may be less powerful.

Of course this assumes you have plenty of room to wield the weapon in. It assumes the space behind you is unoccupied, since the haft has to go somewhere. If the space behind you is occupied in any capacity your efficiency of using the weapon suffers greatly due to hitting the wall, catching the chair leg, hitting your partner in the groin, the enemy behind you swatting at the pole poking at him, etc.

Most polearms were used as piercing weapons first and chopping weapons second. Not ALL were that way, but most were.

Also one must consider how the average soldier was trained to use the polearm. Most were trained to wield it as a reach weapon. Some were trained or learned to use it for close quarters.

Think of it in modern terms. You can use an M-16 as a club, but you really aren't trained in it. The Army would prefer you not accidentally shoot yourself while you are using it to bludgeon someone.

And yes, anyone can pick up a polearm and start whacking people with it, but someone who is trained will be better. If the training does not include how to use it in some way, then essentially you are using the weapon untrained.

Does that make sense?


Actually, you need less room to swing than wielding a sword.

Exercise: get a shaft from a broom, add some dead weight to one end (to simulate blade), grab it vertically like this:

B <-- "business" end
|
| <-- your hand
|
|
|
|
| <-- your hand
|
C <-- counterweight

Now, try to swing the lower or higher end. You'll find that you can use it just fine for striking (though again, since you're not using the reach, your swing are not going to be as effective). You may also find it harder to use the business end, however blunt strikes are easy to pull, and usually, you can swing it faster than a sword (the benefit of two hand grip).
While at this, you can also use the weapon for blocking, however, you need to know how to block properly since it is an often error made by novices to let intercepted attack to hit their fingers.

Lord oKOyA wrote:

Check out this thread.

Here

I know, I just do not agree with quarterstaff or club replacement rule. Polearms are differently balanced than Quarterstaves (the latter are easier to use in that regard). Hence the proposal for straight -2 attack penalty.

Regards,
Ruemere

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

This thread is on the same topic as a lengthier thread already in progress. Please go there to discuss.

This thread is locked.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Dark Archive

ruemere wrote:

I know, I just do not agree with quarterstaff or club replacement rule. Polearms are differently balanced than Quarterstaves (the latter are easier to use in that regard). Hence the proposal for straight -2 attack penalty.

Regards,
Ruemere

This is the same conclusion we came to in the thread I was mentioning. We did not suppose to have polearms and the like act EXACTLY like clubs or quaterstaves at close range but rather do damage type and amount SIMILAR to them. The general consensus in that thread is "that all reach weapons can be used at 5' at a -2 penalty, doing 1d6 (1d4 small) bludgeoning with 1x strength modifier." Damage and attack penalties could then be possibly altered/reduced by the application of additional feats (ie Short Haft). We are actually coming to a similar conclusion with the main differnce being that your proposal does not reduce the damage done at close range.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Equipment and Description / [Polearms] Replace reach restriction with penalty All Messageboards
Recent threads in Equipment and Description