This is a repost from the official AA thread (it seems to be dead).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi there!
As a big polearm fan, I am very happy that so many new ones were added in this book.
However there seem to be quite a few problems with their entries in the weapons table and I am surprised nobody noticed anything.
Some of the issues I have actually touch on a problem in the core book, that up until now I had dismissed as an unavoidable balancing "artifact". However this book flatly contradicts my assumption. What I am talking about is the fact that while the halberd has the "brace" rule, the ranseur and lance don't. My assumption was that they didn't have it because they were "reach" weapons and thus were too long and unwieldy to quickly brace. This book however flatly contradicts this "rule". I would really like a clarification with a consistent argument. By the way, another assumption I made is also contradicted in this book: I always thought that the "brace" rule is only for weapons with piercing damage and an upward facing spear-head.
Another general problem is that in the real world, there are a lot of different designs summarized under the same polearm name. A good example for this is the Guisarme. Originally it was a spear with an attached pruning hook. However there were also voulge- or bill-like designs with blades. Since in the core book the damage is slicing(S), I assumed it referred to the blade variant. Now that this book adds so many new designs, I strongly recommend a change back to the original form of a "spear-and-hook" (giving it piercing(P) damage and maybe "brace" - depending on your answer to the question on reach and brace going together or not).
Here is the list of the polearms in this book that from my perspective seem problematic:
- Bardiche: Historically this weapon had the same size as a halberd (about 5 feet) and should thus not be a reach weapon. It also doesn't have a upward facing spear-head with which one could effectively impale a charging enemy, thus no "brace".
- Bec de Corbin/Lucerne Hammer: In terms of medieval weapons' classifications the difference between these two weapons is very vague. As with most names for medieval weapons, the different denominations are more often due to linguistic/regional differences than distinctive designs. At face value both weapons are the same (one might argue that they favor different ends of their heads, but that is conjecture, as it depends as much on the smith making the weapon and the person commissioning it, than anything else). It would be much better to look at the general class of weapons called pole-axes (to which the halberd also belongs) and then to differentiate by the real differences in design.
Generally these weapons' heads have three "slots". The top is always occupied by a spear-head. For the two side-slots there are three options. It could either be an axe, a hammer (with or without prongs) or a pick (sometimes as a hook). Thus in all we have three possibilities: axe-pick (aka halberd), axe-hammer and hammer-pick (aka Lucerne Hammer or Bec de Corbin). [Interestingly there are also rare occurrences of pole-axes with 2 hammer or 2 axe heads.]
Instead of making the minimal difference between these two weapons, I would strongly recommend to only add one of them and to replace the other with the axe-hammer combination and call it "Poleaxe" (sometimes also written as "Pollaxe") or "Hache" (from the French "Jeu de la Hache"). While I'll leave the damage and crit up to you, the damage type for the axe-hammer/Poleaxe has to consequently be "B or S or P". Also generally pole-axes weren't much longer than 5 feet (ie halberd->sized) and thus shouldn't have "reach". "Brace" is a given for all of them and those with a pick on the side should have "trip".
- Bill: As a classification for weapons this name is almost as bad as pole-axes. I'll go with the original design, which similarly to the guisarme was due to peasants attaching agricultural tools to poles. In the bill's case they used billhooks (a mix between a knife and an axe, normally used for snedding and limbing). It's defining feature is that the sharp edge is on the side of the hook, thus making it a curved blade.
I strongly disagree that the hook was used for parrying as the text mentions. It was used for dismounting and tripping. The original also didn't have a pointed spear-tip (although later versions commonly had both a spear-tip and a hook on the blunt side). Accordingly the special rules should be: "reach, trip, see text" and the text shouldn't have the +1 AC rule. Also, one might argue that the damage type should be slashing AND piercing (S and P).
- Glaive-Guisarme: Essentially this is a glaive with a hook on the dull side of the blade (making it the inverse of the bill). As such it shouldn't have the "brace" rule. It should however have the "trip" rule (like the guisarme). I would also make it slightly heavier than the normal glaive.
That's pretty much it. Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
First, in your games make whatever changes you want! :)
Second, so many weapons are classified under one weapon because in a game there just is not enough options to justify having listings for 100+ different polearms.
Third, its a game and not a simulation of real world mechanics of medieval weaponry. The weapons are inspired by real world counterparts, but since we aren't actually swinging real world weapons at one another (usually anyway!) what matters is the in game mechanics.
Think of it this way... shields do a HORRIBLE job of recreating the usefulness of a shield in real life... but it is a game and it fills its game niche well. Polearms and other weapons are the same way.
Second, so many weapons are classified under one weapon because in a game there just is not enough options to justify having listings for 100+ different polearms.
That's exactly my point. There are only a limited amount of weapons we can integrate into the game. So instead of two weapons that are essentially the same, I am proposing to only integrate one of them and replace the other one with a weapon that is from the same group of weapons but substantially different.
Third, its a game and not a simulation of real world mechanics of medieval weaponry. The weapons are inspired by real world counterparts, but since we aren't actually swinging real world weapons at one another (usually anyway!) what matters is the in game mechanics.
I know this isn't a simulation with the goal of maximum realism - which is precisely why I didn't even talk about damage dice and critical modifiers. However, if we use the real world weapons as an inspiration, we need to implement their basic characteristics (ie damage types and at least some of their "special" qualities). We wouldn't give a club the slashing damage type or the "brace" rule.
I agree the most important aspect is making the weapons balanced, which is what (at least from my perspective) the damage dice and crit modifiers are for.
Here is a picture of two bardiches and a flail for size comparison.
I believe I see the source of your issue. You are trying to equate the game mechanics of the weapons to the real world items that bear the same names.
A longsword is not a longsword. It is a 1d8 one hand slashing weapon with a 19-20 x2 crit with the word "longsword" stenciled on it. Any connection between it and a real world longsword is purely your own imagination reacting to the familiar name.
As I said two posts ago, I'm not interested in modelling the game's weapons into perfect copies of their real world counterparts, which would be impossible anyway since the damage dice and critical modifiers are very abstract in the first place. I don' even talk about damage dice and crit modifiers.
I DO believe however, that the in-game weapons are inspired/derived from the real ones. They don't just have their names stencilled on them. If they did, any names or any damage types and special rules would have done (see my comment on clubs with slicing damage and "brace"). The best proof for this are the illustrations in the Core Rulebook (p. 146-147).Ensuring that no 2 weapons have the exact same mechanics is of greater importance than matching the abilities of the real world name attached to them.
Your argument that no two weapons should have the same (or nearly the same - making them almost indistinguishable) mechanics is precisely what motivated me to write this whole thing in the first place.
Look at the polearms in the Adventurer's Armory. Except for a small change with the Bill, their special rules are identical. And five polearms share two damage types. My argument with their real world counterparts is just a reason/explanation (albeit a good one) for changes.
|
Page 57 of the Pathfinder Chronicles Faction Guide solves your problem:
Let Them Come (Combat)
You have trained to fight onrushing enemy hordes. With
a carefully timed strike you ensure that their reckless
charge will be their undoing.
Prerequisites: Dwarf, Ninth Battalion TPA 25.
Benefit: You treat all one- or two-handed melee weapons
as if they had the brace special feature.
Normal: Only weapons with the brace special feature
can be readied against charges.
|
|
James: would these feats be overpowered if we ignore the TPA requirement? Would an XP and/or gold cost be appropriate to bypass the TPA? (which would effectively translate into time spent training with the masters of these factions to gain this combat knowledge...)
Our group love the faction guide, and especially those feats, but I do not wish to further burden our DM with additional bookkeeping (come up with TPA rewards and/or track them and such...)
Any advice would be appreciated.
James: would these feats be overpowered if we ignore the TPA requirement? Would an XP and/or gold cost be appropriate to bypass the TPA? (which would effectively translate into time spent training with the masters of these factions to gain this combat knowledge...)
Our group love the faction guide, and especially those feats, but I do not wish to further burden our DM with additional bookkeeping (come up with TPA rewards and/or track them and such...)
Any advice would be appreciated.
Also desire a response to this.
TPA isn't really a mechanical cost, it's a flavor/roleplaying cost. So you could waive it, but that makes babies cry.
Page 57 of the Pathfinder Chronicles Faction Guide solves your problem:
Let Them Come (Combat)
You have trained to fight onrushing enemy hordes. With
a carefully timed strike you ensure that their reckless
charge will be their undoing.
Prerequisites: Dwarf, Ninth Battalion TPA 25.
Benefit: You treat all one- or two-handed melee weapons
as if they had the brace special feature.
Normal: Only weapons with the brace special feature
can be readied against charges.
I don't really understand. How does it solve my problem?
|
|
TPA isn't really a mechanical cost, it's a flavor/roleplaying cost. So you could waive it, but that makes babies cry.
I know... and I think I came up with a solution [GASP!]
Some regional feats have the "affinity" prereq, which, according to the campaign setting, can be bypassed with 2 ranks of knowledge local.
For a TPA prereq, one could bypass it with 2 ranks of the appropriate knowledge (i.e. for Lantern Bearer org, for example, one would need knowledge of secrets that are most precious to the elves, so substitute prereq could be 2 ranks in knowledge history).
For anything related to Pathfinders, 2 ranks in knowledge: geography.
For the Bloodstone Swords, 2 ranks in knowledge: nobility and royalty, would be appropriate as they have to maneuvre amidst a tangled mess of petty kingdoms on a daily basis...
Edit: perhaps 1 ranks per 10 TPA prereq, round up? i.e. 10 TPA prereq = 1 rank; 35 TPA prereq = 4 ranks...
What I am talking about is the fact that while the halberd has the "brace" rule, the ranseur and lance don't.
What I'm talking about here is a consistent reasoning about why a basic weapon (ie non-upgraded by magic or feats) should have the "brace" rule.
This reasoning isn't about which weapons could realistically be used to impale a charging enemy. But within the Pathfinder world and its weapons there should be a relatively consistent framework for giving weapons special abilities. Of course game balance considerations can also be incorporated into this rules framework.
The best example for such a rules framework is what I thought it might have been for the "brace" rule: The weapon needs to have an upward facing spear like point, have a wooden haft of a certain length (so as to grip it sturdily - thus excluding the half-spear). And, for balancing reasons, weapons with "reach" can't have it.
The fact that there is a feat that gives the "brace" rule to all kinds of weapons doesn't really matter, since a feat represents an extraordinary skill.
|
|
The decision to include features such as brace and trip is no doubt stemming from game mechanics / balance issues, and not real-world analogies.
While we are discussing game balance, I'll add that the brace feature is probably the least powerful, while the reach feature is the most significant in terms of mitigating these weapons' low damage / low crit features... I don't think I've ever seen a melee type use the brace feature of a weapon once in 10 years of 3.X gaming...
The decision to include features such as brace and trip is no doubt stemming from game mechanics / balance issues, and not real-world analogies.
I've got to slightly disagree. I think the primary reason to give a weapon are real-world analogies and only thereafter are game balance issues taken into account.
While we are discussing game balance, I'll add that the brace feature is probably the least powerful, while the reach feature is the most significant in terms of mitigating these weapons' low damage / low crit features... I don't think I've ever seen a melee type use the brace feature of a weapon once in 10 years of 3.X gaming...
I think a reason for this is that players (especially novices) rarely use readied actions. Another reason might be that many people think this rule is only applicable against charges targeting your PC.
Think of the classical situation with three PCs (two ranged damage dealers (DD) and a close combatant (CC) with a "brace" weapon) fighting a mob of CC enemies. The CC stands in between the enemy CCs and your allied ranged DDs. Now let's assume your CC has a higher initiative and readies against a charge.
The enemies are smart enough to target (and thus charge) the ranged DDs first. However in order to reach the DDs they have to pass through the squares the CC threatens. As soon as they enter his threatened area he can trigger his readied action. Note that your CC can choose when to trigger his readied action and could let the first enemy pass while waiting for a more dangerous foe.
This whole readied action business is also independent of opportunity attacks. Thus the CC could strike the first enemy (against whom he didn't use his readied action) with an attack of opportunity (without the "brace" rule) when he leaves one of his threatened squares.
In summary I'd say that while the "reach" rule probably is more powerful, I wouldn't go as far as to say that "brace" is the least powerful. In a well coordinated party it can be quite powerful.
|
|
In summary I'd say that while the "reach" rule probably is more powerful, I wouldn't go as far as to say that "brace" is the least powerful. In a well coordinated party it can be quite powerful.
...and how long have you been gaming again? (and often this scenario has happened for you, in REALITY?)
:PThe reach feature can be used by a fighter every single time he swings his weapon. The brace feature is about as powerful as "my weapon's color is blue" feature (actually, you may get more mileage from knowing your weapon is the color blue than knowing your weapon has the brace feature... :) )
As I said, you need a well coordinated party.
Of course, if your GM goes easy on you, refined tactics like these aren't necessary ;)
Also, I hope I don't have to remind you that a reach weapon doesn't work against adjacent foes, which means that you won't be using it much. If you're a CC-type nobody will be in front of you and if you're a DD you'll have better attacks than using a reach weapon from behind an ally. (Of course you can always do the 5-foot-step-dance, but that reduces your PCs tactical utility to zero and only works if you've got room).
Oh yeah, and I use the "brace" rule quite often. Every time our group faces CC enemies and the map allows for good positioning we use the defensive heavy fire tactic. The Sorc and Ranger lay down the damage and I cover them. Also has the advantage of staying out of the way of fireballs and the like.
The right gear and certain feats can make Perception and Initiative checks go your way most of the time.
Also, and that is the good thing about "brace", if in a certain combat encounter you don't have the initiative, you don't have to use it.
However, before this discussion gets completely sidetracked, here is an interesting fact about the Bill that I just discovered:
The Bill played a decisive role in the Battle of Flodden Field (1513), where it proved to be superior to the pikes of the Scots. The Bills of the English chopped the pikes apart. This makes sense since the billhook - from which the Bill originates - is made for exactly that job: cutting branches.
I would propose to replace the special "parrying" rule (+1 AC), with a bonus to sunder attacks against (wooden) hafted weapons.
Here are some close-up pictures of the different pole-axe heads.
Here is a picture of the head of an original guisarme.
These weapons are called Roßschinder in german (literally "Horse-Oppressor", although the horse is more in the general sense of cavalry). They are guisarmes, but are also similar to Bills (the side of the head with the hook might have been sharpened and thus usable for slashing).
This is the picture of a Glaive-Guisarme. In German it is called Trabantenglefe, which translates to "Bodyguard's Glaive".
Here and here are pictures of Bills. In German the Bill is called Kriegsgertel, which translates to "War-Bill" (for the second image the antiques dealer incorrectly translated Kriegsgertel into Guisarme). Another German name for the Billhook - next to Gertel - is Hippe.
This is the variant of the Bill with a spear-tip that I mentioned. It is generally called English Bill.
@SKR: I have to retract my original critical statement about the "parrying" special rule for the Bill.
I just discovered two pictures of variants of the Bill (here and here) that have a fluke at the back of the blade. This fluke was used to hold enemy weapons by the haft (effectively a parrying move) and enable other Bill bearers of the same unit to cut through the haft (as in the Battle of Flodden Field mentioned above).
Please ignore my comments on that rule.
I've got to slightly disagree. I think the primary reason to give a weapon are real-world analogies and only thereafter are game balance issues taken into account.
I suspect you will never get a satisfactory "official" answer to your questions. I recommend you write a short article about pole-arms and detail how you think they should be written up. Include all the interesting historical footnotes on usage you like. Include some polearm feats. Sell it as "Alch's Advanced Guide to Polearms" or somesuch as a $2 PDF. I'd buy it. Or pitch it as an article for Kobold Quarterly.
I can tell you in my game, if anyone bothered with a pole-arm I'd gladly let them all have brace. Not that I expect our centaur barbarian to give up his greatsword.
Here is a picture of the head of an original guisarme.
I must correct myself, the weapon visible in that picture is not a guisarme, but a "Saquebute". Here and here are additional pictures of modern replicas of the Saquebute. The name "Saquebute" is old french and translates to "pull-and-push" (the original french name for the trombone had the same name and was translated into English as sackbut during the renaissance). See this (french) book for some details (just search the book for "saquebute").
I also need to rectify my comments on the Guisarme from the OP and later posts. It seems the "Guisarme" is simply the french name for the Bill.
They represent exactly the same weapon. The different incarnations I showed in the last posts (like the Roßschinder) just show the evolution of this weapon over time (the Roßschinder being newer than the "English Bill" and the even older primitive Bills without spear-tips). Both the French book in the link above and the standard book on medieval arms by George Cameron Stone support this interpretation.
I've got to slightly disagree. I think the primary reason to give a weapon are real-world analogies and only thereafter are game balance issues taken into account.I suspect you will never get a satisfactory "official" answer to your questions. I recommend you write a short article about pole-arms and detail how you think they should be written up. Include all the interesting historical footnotes on usage you like. Include some polearm feats. Sell it as "Alch's Advanced Guide to Polearms" or somesuch as a $2 PDF. I'd buy it. Or pitch it as an article for Kobold Quarterly.
I can tell you in my game, if anyone bothered with a pole-arm I'd gladly let them all have brace. Not that I expect our centaur barbarian to give up his greatsword.
Since my inquiries have led to some additional insights since my original post, I am thinking about summing them up in a new post. However I won't sell it. I do this for fun and because it interests me, I wouldn't want others to be excluded just because they can't pay.