I have a player, 2nd lvl. fighter in my campaign that carries a Lucern Hammer as his weapon of choice and a longsword as his back-up. Now to my understanding, the hammer is a reach weapon, meaning he can't use it against targets in adjacent squares.
Since he'll be carrying the hammer in his off-hand while using his longsword, he's pleading, however politely, to be able to use the polearm defensively while fighting with the sword...
My thought is that he'd need a Feat to pull that off, actually my first thought was 'Ah...no,' but since I'm a pretty green DM I thought I'd put it out there...tks.
There is a Feat just for this: defending with a weapon while fighting with another.
It's called Two Weapon Defence.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponDefense
There are advances to this feat; each requires a higher level of Two Weapon Fighting and increases the bonus by +1.
So he's trying to get the AC bonus for fighting defensively with the polearm while not taking the attack penalty while using the longsword in his other hand? Um, no. At best, if he has 2 weapon defense as a feat, I'd allow the hammer to grant a +1 shield bonus (I've done this in a medieval re-enactment group) but not be able to be used offensively.
IF you allow a shield bonus (I wouldn't) I would also apply the penalties to two weapon fighting - to the longsword - with a heavy weapon in the off hand.
The scenario, as I understand it, is my opinion - absurd - could you actually wield the weapons? Yes of course - but you would be inordinately slow with each. I certainly wouldn't allow the shield bonus to apply to missile weapons.
I like to push the boundaries with my DMs - but thats just silly.
Director of Narrative
|
Anyone care to help out.FH
Sure!
Shorten grip is from Dragon #331. It has no prereqs and allows someone using a polearm to attack adjacent foes at a -2 to attack. To be thorough, even though it wasn't brought up, this feat does not work with the awl pike.
Edit: Fixed, thanks eric
Or he could just take the feat that allows polearms to be used against adjacent foes....Short Haft I think its called? A move action to change grips or something and I can't remember which book it is in.
Anyone care to help out.FH
Short Haft is from the PH II. It allows a swift action to change your grip.
I have a player, 2nd lvl. fighter in my campaign that carries a Lucern Hammer as his weapon of choice and a longsword as his back-up. Now to my understanding, the hammer is a reach weapon, meaning he can't use it against targets in adjacent squares.
Since he'll be carrying the hammer in his off-hand while using his longsword, he's pleading, however politely, to be able to use the polearm defensively while fighting with the sword...
My thought is that he'd need a Feat to pull that off, actually my first thought was 'Ah...no,' but since I'm a pretty green DM I thought I'd put it out there...tks.
Okay, well, here's the deal:
He can hold his lucerne hammer in his off-hand and wield his longsword in his main hand. As the lucerne hammer is a two-handed weapon, he would have to drop (free action) or sheathe (move action) his sword in order to wield it. It is a standard action to retrieve and wield a dropped weapon.
However, if he really does wish to use this tactic... there's a feat in the Complete Warrior called Monkey Grip, which would allow him to use a two-handed weapon in one hand at a -2 penalty. He would then also need to pick up the Two-Weapon Fighting feat or suffer a fairly severe additional attack penalty with both weapons. If this is a fighting style that he wants to focus in, there is a prestige class in the Complete Adventurer called the Tempest which he would be interested in.
Until he gets Monkey Grip, he can still two-weapon fight (at whatever penalty his two-weapon fighting would be), but here's what he would have to do: start his turn 10 feet from the enemy; attack with the lucerne hammer; take a 5-foot step, drawing his sword as he moves; attack with the sword. It's a pretty inefficient tactic, but it's pretty much the only one that will work without Monkey Grip (and without Two-Weapon Fighting, he can't expect it to work very often at all).
Any questions?
Thanks for all the feedback, Esp. Thanis Kartaleon for the break down of actions...I found the Shorten Grip feat and I'm sure he'll be interested in that. The way he's proposed it, it looks like his tactic would have been to use the polearm as an improvised shield when at close range. Given the points raised here, I'm glad I didn't just give it to him.
Brandishing a 10' pole - even defensively - while hacking at a foe with his sword does seem like a bit much. I think the two-weapon defense tack is prob what I'll offer him. Seeing the pole arm feats eric led me to might just open him up to new tactics. I know one of his concerns was having to drop the hammer to fight with his sword and having it walk away or worse get used against him.
Brandishing a 10' pole - even defensively - while hacking at a foe with his sword does seem like a bit much.
Nah, you just stick it in the ground straight up and down; it defends that whole side of you from any swings, and if you're agile you can move around it and use it for cover just like you might a tree.
Nah, you just stick it in the ground straight up and down; it defends that whole side of you from any swings, and if you're agile you can move around it and use it for cover just like you might a tree.
Brandishing a 10' pole - even defensively - while hacking at a foe with his sword does seem like a bit much.
Are you kidding?
I can quite see that happening...
1. It's a fantasy game. It looks cool. It should be doable.
2. A +1 10ft pole has more Hardness and HP then a Light Wooden Shield does, and that grants a +1 AC bonus.
3. You could even make said Hammer from a lightweight metal alloy. (Hey, a good use for a part Mithral weapon?) That makes it tougher then any shield. Add a spiked bottom to smash it into the ground, and you have a pretty cool and different kind of fighting style.
Reality is only neccesary if it enhances the gaming experience, in my humble opinion :)
I can quite see that happening...
1. It's a fantasy game. It looks cool. It should be doable.
2. A +1 10ft pole has more Hardness and HP then a Light Wooden Shield does, and that grants a +1 AC bonus.
3. You could even make said Hammer from a lightweight metal alloy. (Hey, a good use for a part Mithral weapon?) That makes it tougher then any shield. Add a spiked bottom to smash it into the ground, and you have a pretty cool and different kind of fighting style.
Reality is only neccesary if it enhances the gaming experience, in my humble opinion :)
Well I suppose -
as long as you are always fighting on soil rather than rock, or cut stone, or any of a variety of other surfaces, and as long as your opponents aren't using thrusting or missile weapons, or lack the ability step diagonally, and we assume that blows directed against the "shield polearm planter" don't send said polearm flying as it is standing solely from a single thrust into the (as already mentioned) unusually accomodating receiving surface.
I think I would rule that when planted in the ground a cumbersome pointy pole designed as a reach weapon - is not the same as nor does it confer the same in game benefits as a shield - which could be described as a broad (as opposed to skinny or pole like) defensive device designed to be moved easily, quickly, and with great control to ward off blows. Maybe thats makes me inflexible and unimaginative, if so, I apologize, please just ignore my responses and carry on (I am sure that is whats going to happen anyway) ;-)
You are the DM, and as such you get to make the call. But a character with Two Weapon Defence (which I still consider a prereq to pull this off) can defende himself with a dagger, a rapier, or any other light weapon. Why not with a pole?
Anyway :)
It's up to your DM style, but you shouldn't dismiss things just because they don't sound logical. After all, that's not what the game is about.
You are the DM, and as such you get to make the call. But a character with Two Weapon Defence (which I still consider a prereq to pull this off) can defende himself with a dagger, a rapier, or any other light weapon. Why not with a pole?
Anyway :)
It's up to your DM style, but you shouldn't dismiss things just because they don't sound logical. After all, that's not what the game is about.
Well because if there is no basis in logic the game falls apart. EVEN IF you were to concede something like fighting defensively defending with a polearm in one hand while attacking with a sword in the other - you have to look at the game balance of it - if you allow it - you are granting that character an unfair advantage over the other characters (PCs and NPCs) could you make such a tactic possible - sure with a collection feats designed around that kind of fighting style - but with a single feat (or none) as it sounds like the palyer in the OP is going for - it not only breaks the verisimilitude of the game but reward the player for attempting something "cheesy" - in my opinion.
FWIW it is my humble opinion that stuff in game needs to be logical to work - within the internal context of the game to be sure - but logic within that context should be required.
Okay the dead horse is now thoroughly beaten.
|
You are the DM, and as such you get to make the call. But a character with Two Weapon Defence (which I still consider a prereq to pull this off) can defende himself with a dagger, a rapier, or any other light weapon. Why not with a pole?
Anyway :)
It's up to your DM style, but you shouldn't dismiss things just because they don't sound logical. After all, that's not what the game is about.Well because if there is no basis in logic the game falls apart. EVEN IF you were to concede something like fighting defensively defending with a polearm in one hand while attacking with a sword in the other - you have to look at the game balance of it - if you allow it - you are granting that character an unfair advantage over the other characters (PCs and NPCs) could you make such a tactic possible - sure with a collection feats designed around that kind of fighting style - but with a single feat (or none) as it sounds like the palyer in the OP is going for - it not only breaks the verisimilitude of the game but reward the player for attempting something "cheesy" - in my opinion.
FWIW it is my humble opinion that stuff in game needs to be logical to work - within the internal context of the game to be sure - but logic within that context should be required.
Okay the dead horse is now thoroughly beaten.
I agree, Kyr. This arguement is ridiculous. You can't use a 2-handed weapon and a 1-handed weapon to TWF or TWD. You need 3-hands. Even with Monkey grip the penalties for using both of these would be staggering and certainly not a -2 per attack. I didn't do any math (too ridiculous to bother) but I would expect this combo with Monkey Grip, TWF, and TWD to still make the attacks something like a -8 or so.
Just take Short Haft and fight with the pole arm. A swift action and you can attack up close or with reach. Quick Draw and you can switch weapons. You want defence from the Lucerne Hammer? Get it enchanted with Defending, or make up a Polearm Defence feat where you can sacrifice attack bonus for a Shield AC bonus up to your full BAB sorta like combat expertise.FH
Are you kidding?Nah, you just stick it in the ground straight up and down; it defends that whole side of you from any swings, and if you're agile you can move around it and use it for cover just like you might a tree.
Brandishing a 10' pole - even defensively - while hacking at a foe with his sword does seem like a bit much.
I don´t think he is. This might actually work, judging from my own LARPing experiences. (You can´t quite compare that to reenactment, of course.) You are more exposed than with a true shield, of course, and will probably get quite some hits on your hand holding the pole, but you might use it for defense.
Stefan
update
He's going to take Shorten Grip, anything to keep that hammer in play, he loves it so...
|
Are you kidding?Nah, you just stick it in the ground straight up and down; it defends that whole side of you from any swings, and if you're agile you can move around it and use it for cover just like you might a tree.
Brandishing a 10' pole - even defensively - while hacking at a foe with his sword does seem like a bit much.
I've done it too. It's pretty easy and doesn't require any particular sort of ground to work. You plant the butt of the weapon on the ground (it can move about somewhat as you move without particular problems) and attack and defend with the other hand. It would be largely useless against missile attacks, and it should probably make it harder to hit with the primary weapon.
The mechanic could be pretty similar to that in Combat Expertise, except that you couldn't use it against missile attacks and you couldn't use it with a shield. Because this is less useful than the feat, I'd allow it as a Trick.
I agree with Kyr- the whole thing just smells funny.
Are you kidding?Nah, you just stick it in the ground straight up and down; it defends that whole side of you from any swings, and if you're agile you can move around it and use it for cover just like you might a tree.
Brandishing a 10' pole - even defensively - while hacking at a foe with his sword does seem like a bit much.I've done it too. It's pretty easy and doesn't require any particular sort of ground to work. You plant the butt of the weapon on the ground (it can move about somewhat as you move without particular problems) and attack and defend with the other hand. It would be largely useless against missile attacks, and it should probably make it harder to hit with the primary weapon.
The mechanic could be pretty similar to that in Combat Expertise, except that you couldn't use it against missile attacks and you couldn't use it with a shield. Because this is less useful than the feat, I'd allow it as a Trick.
You've DONE it? Okay - I haven't "done it" - but I have a "little" training as a martial artist, and IMHO sword in hand if some one pursued that tactic it would be game over for them fast - so fast in fact that it defies my ability to describe it - unless I slowed down to mock them for pursuing such an absurd tactic.
Am I missing something - the original scenario described is a "polearm" in one hand - and a longsword in the other - defending with one - for the all of the advantages of fighting defensively while fighting normally with a longsword in the other - and the specific tactic is to plant said polearm in the ground - one handed - and use it as a shield. If nothing else the pole is in your way as well - you are after all hiding behind it - you fingers are exposed on said pole - in my range to attack pretty much at will - you can't defend them effectively or move the pole - no can you defend you offside to a side step your neck is exposed - I think if you actually "used this tactic, it was used in a context were the opposing individual was not really trying to hurt you. Just my opinion.
But for what its worth I am unconvinced - I am still of the opinion that this tactic is a twisted form of suicide.
Also, using two-weapon defence to get a +1 shield bonus from an off-hand weapon represents advanced parrying training with a light and maneuverable weapon. Although the feat doesn't specifically state it, it's reasonable to believe that one would rely extensively on the crossbar (or a lip underneath an axe head, since it's allowed by the feat, but even that's pushing it in my mind) to absorb the force of the blow, stopping and/or redirecting it.
A polearm isn't a dagger. It can't be adroitly maneuvered in the same fashion and with the same speed in one hand. I can see the point of using a staff or some other pole-like weapon defensively (thus, the defensive fighting maneuver), but while holding and attacking with a longsword in the other hand? And it sounds like we're talking about some long-hafted hammer here, not a quarterstaff.
Nope, Short Haft and Quick Draw are what he needs to go with, and it sounds like the player is. Good. If he's obsessed with using them both simultaneously, then as stated above, Monkey Grip and Two-Weapon Fighting will allow it to be done, but expect goblin leper children to laugh at his attack bonus.
Goblin leper children! What a great idea for a random encounter...say 10 or so...
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
You've DONE it? Okay - I haven't "done it" - but I have a "little" training as a martial artist, and IMHO sword in hand if some one pursued that tactic it would be game over for them fast - so fast in fact that it defies my ability to describe it - unless I slowed down to mock them for pursuing such an absurd tactic.
Am I missing something - the original scenario described is a "polearm" in one hand - and a longsword in the other - defending with one - for the all of the advantages of fighting defensively while fighting normally with a longsword in the other - and the specific tactic is to plant said polearm in the ground - one handed - and use it as a shield. If nothing else the pole is in your way as well - you are after all hiding behind it - you fingers are exposed on said pole - in my range to attack pretty much at will - you can't defend them effectively or move the pole - no can you defend you offside to a side step your neck is exposed...
Not only would it be ineffective against missile weapons (and piercing weapons in general like spears and rapiers) but it would also be fairly useless against two-weapon fighters. They could just swing around both sides of the pole and hit you no matter which way you went. If an opponent had a flail, nunchaku, or chain, the off-hand 'shield weapon' would be ridiculously easy to disarm because you're trying to hold onto a two-handed weapon with only one hand.
Basically, this sounds to me like a really, REALLY stupid idea. It would only work against slashing weapons and even then, only against smaller ones (a greatsword or greataxe's momentum would knock the pole right over and carry through unless the person trying to hold it with one hand was inhumanly strong).
|
|
You've DONE it? Okay - I haven't "done it" - but I have a "little" training as a martial artist, and IMHO sword in hand if some one pursued that tactic it would be game over for them fast - so fast in fact that it defies my ability to describe it - unless I slowed down to mock them for pursuing such an absurd tactic.
Am I missing something - the original scenario described is a "polearm" in one hand - and a longsword in the other - defending with one - for the all of the advantages of fighting defensively while fighting normally with a longsword in the other - and the specific tactic is to plant said polearm in the ground - one handed - and use it as a shield. If nothing else the pole is in your way as well - you are after all hiding behind it - you fingers are exposed on said pole - in my range to attack pretty much at will - you can't defend them effectively or move the pole - no can you defend you offside to a side step your neck is exposed...
Not only would it be ineffective against missile weapons (and piercing weapons in general like spears and rapiers) but it would also be fairly useless against two-weapon fighters. They could just swing around both sides of the pole and hit you no matter which way you went. If an opponent had a flail, nunchaku, or chain, the off-hand 'shield weapon' would be ridiculously easy to disarm because you're trying to hold onto a two-handed weapon with only one hand.
Basically, this sounds to me like a really, REALLY stupid idea. It would only work against slashing weapons and even then, only against smaller ones (a greatsword or greataxe's momentum would knock the pole right over and carry through unless the person trying to hold it with one hand was inhumanly strong).
An upward or downward slice with a sword would slide along the shaft nicely to guide ANY attack right into the fingers lopping off a few very easily. If you found this to work it was because, like someone already stated, they didn't want to really hurt you or they are not real combatants and didn't see the vulnerablity and exploit it.
FH
|
|
Am I missing something - the original scenario described is a "polearm" in one hand - and a longsword in the other - defending with one - for the all of the advantages of fighting defensively while fighting normally with a longsword in the other - and the specific tactic is to plant said polearm in the ground - one handed - and use it as a shield. If nothing else the pole is in your way as well - you are after all hiding behind it - you fingers are exposed on said pole - in my range to attack pretty much at will - you can't defend them effectively or move the pole - no can you defend you offside to a side step your neck is exposed - I think if you...
Passing by the snark, I'll address the substantive issues. First, I said "plant the butt on" not "in". That means it's not stuck in the ground, it's set on the ground. And that means it's not immobile, and nor are you.
"... you are after all hiding behind it...." No, you are using it to shield you from attacks, usually from one side. You are no more "hiding behind" the polearm than a single-sword fighter is hiding behind his sword.
"...you fingers are exposed on said pole...." You mean you'd actually use a pole arm without a gauntlet? I certainly wouldn't.
"... you can't ... move the pole..." Why not? Is there some rule? If so, it's never been enforced where I fight.
"... no can you defend you offside to a side step your neck is exposed...." Sorry, I don't understand that at all. If you sidestep, I step forward. The polearm remains in a defensive position. And your neck is defended just fine.
Not only would it be ineffective against missile weapons (and piercing weapons in general like spears and rapiers) but it would also be fairly useless against two-weapon fighters. They could just swing around both sides of the pole and hit you no matter which way you went.
I love fighting people with two weapons, and this combination is particularly effective against them. You block one weapon with the pole and punch-block or beat the other with the sword if necessary. This leaves you inside the two-weapon fighter's reach, and leaves him at your mercy. As to thrusting (not piercing) weapons, you only need to move yourself or their point about 2-3 inches aside to avoid the blow. And a pole works well for that.
If an opponent had a flail, nunchaku, or chain, the off-hand 'shield weapon' would be ridiculously easy to disarm because you're trying to hold onto a two-handed weapon with only one hand.
Disarm, no. Be hit, perhaps. But that is no different from the case with a shield (which is what a flexible weapon is designed to defeat, after all). Flexible weapons have their own serious problems, which are beyond the scope of this (overlong) reply.
Basically, this sounds to me like a really, REALLY stupid idea. It would only work against slashing weapons and even then, only against smaller ones (a greatsword or greataxe's momentum would knock the pole right over and carry through unless the person trying to hold it with one hand was inhumanly strong).
You vastly overestimate the capabilities of large weapons. A polearm used in this way will absorb enough energy to abate a swing without using much strength at all.
An upward or downward slice with a sword would slide along the shaft nicely to guide ANY attack right into the fingers lopping off a few very easily. If you found this to work it was because, like someone already stated, they didn't want to really hurt you or they are not real combatants and didn't see the vulnerablity and exploit it.
Well, that, or maybe it was the steel clamshell gauntlets I was wearing at the time. (Also, swords are far more likely to break than slice off fingers.) The Lucerne Hammer referred to by the OP is a heavy fighter's weapon. Heavy fighters (sane ones, anyway) wear gauntlets.
The advantage of a polearm over a shield is that it defends your entire height. You don't have to worry about strikes to the lower leg or to the head or shoulder from the defended side (as you do with a shield. (The vulnerabilities are elsewhere.)
Like a shield, it is nearly useless if you don't use it actively, though the techniques are different. The biggest disadvantage to this thing is that it's overly defensive, not that it's not defensive enough.
Am I missing something - the original scenario described is a "polearm" in one hand - and a longsword in the other - defending with one - for the all of the advantages of fighting defensively while fighting normally with a longsword in the other - and the specific tactic is to plant said polearm in the ground - one handed - and use it as a shield. If nothing else the pole is in your way as well - you are after all hiding behind it - you fingers are exposed on said pole - in my range to attack pretty much at will - you can't defend them effectively or move the pole - no can you defend you offside to a side step your neck is exposed - I think if you...Passing by the snark, I'll address the substantive issues. First, I said "plant the butt on" not "in". That means it's not stuck in the ground, it's set on the ground. And that means it's not immobile, and nor are you.
"... you are after all hiding behind it...." No, you are using it to shield you from attacks, usually from one side. You are no more "hiding behind" the polearm than a single-sword fighter is hiding behind his sword.
"...you fingers are exposed on said pole...." You mean you'd actually use a pole arm without a gauntlet? I certainly wouldn't.
"... you can't ... move the pole..." Why not? Is there some rule? If so, it's never been enforced where I fight.
"... no can you defend you offside to a side step your neck is exposed...." Sorry, I don't understand that at all. If you sidestep, I step forward. The polearm remains in a defensive position. And your neck is defended just fine.
Not only would it be ineffective against missile weapons (and piercing weapons in general like spears and rapiers) but it would also be fairly useless against two-weapon fighters. They could just swing around both sides of the pole and hit you no matter which way you went.I love fighting people with two weapons, and this combination is particularly effective against them. You block one...
That is FANTASY role playing! Well Done!
That is FANTASY role playing! Well Done!I generally expect better from this site than the WotC site's boards. I suppose the occasional leakage isn't too surprising, though.
Fair enough - I generally expect when called on something ridiculous being ridiculous - to own up - but okay you want a more reasoned response - I'll try...it would be a shame if my posts weren;t up to standard.
With regard to the mobility of the polearm - they are unwieldy one handed - particularly in the off hand, it is my assumption that the sword is in the dominant hand. This creates and impediment for the sword polearm combatant - his sword arm needs to come across the width of his frame the and the length of the defendig arm before being able to engage and attacker - plus the sword polearm fighter doesn't not have the same ability to swing the sword - he cannot use his hips and shoulders in the same and the arc of his sword is limited by the pole he has "braced" on the ground - thus reducing, options, power, and range. The polearm itself while having some mobility constrains the abiltiy to parry with the sword and well and while bracing the pole may allow the wielder to take of some shock from heavy blows it also severely constrains the wielders abilty to protect his back and neck and arm if raised from being braced to parry - this weapon (which is designed to be used with two heads) weiled in one hand will be slow and an opponent not similarly hindered even if effectively blocked - will be able to follow up with the polearm/sword wielder largely exposed. Add to this the opportunity to set the polearm/sword wielder up - by attacking the polearm rather than the wielder - the attacker can set the two weapon fight up for a number of particularly difficult blows to defend against - back, neck, arm - and this attacks against thepolearm can easily be made with an open hand a kick, or even a shield. If the polearm wielder elects to drop the pole he has to adjust tactics.
To be able to use any two weapon fighting style effectively -requires a fair bit of training, this is acknowledged in the game by the feat trees around two weapon fighting. Effective two weapon fighting also presumes weapons suitable to the task - again a reality acknowledged in the game by thhe rules about light weapon in the off hand and the various penalties. While I acknowledge that the scenario described is not specifically dealt with in the rules - I think that is because given the precedent set by the rules that are present - that two weapon fighting with a longsword in one hand and a two handed weapon in the offhand - was perceived as outside of reasonable expectation (even before the issue of fighting defensivle with one hand while fighting normally with the other is raised), and thus not something that needed to be addressed.
I hope this post is closer to the standard expected.
I didn't proofread it.
|
|
You encase your hand in metal and let me try to knock a 12 lb weapon out of your hand with a long sword and I will guarantee that your hand will be non-functional for quite some time afterwards. I trained for 10 years in martial arts and weapons forms. There is a technique that is used similar to what you are stating but it involves 2 handed staff weilding. No secondary weapon (and certainly not a second weapon as a primary weapon). Why? Because it is not a viable option for a fighting technique. Anyone who attempted to get into combat with a trained opponent while doing so would be maimed badly even if they were wearing gauntlets. I was trained in butterfly swords, chinese longswords, ringsword techniques, and a few others and all have manuevers that are taught to effectively combat someone using a polearm 2-handed. Use one with one hand (your off-hand at that) and I seriously doubt you would have that polearm after 1 or 2 rounds (and would be nursing a shattered hand, wrist, or missing fingers).
LARPing is fun but it is NOT in anyway, shape or form, a good barometer of what would be usable in actual combat situations.
I am not trying to be-little LARPing, I actual think this is a fun activity, so please don't think I have anything against LARPing.
The technique is severely flawed and would result in serious maiming or death of a person in a real combat situation. Sorry to be so tenacious on a point.
FH
You encase your hand in metal and let me try to knock a 12 lb weapon out of your hand with a long sword and I will guarantee that your hand will be non-functional for quite some time afterwards. I trained for 10 years in martial arts and weapons forms.
LARPing is fun but it is NOT in anyway, shape or form, a good barometer of what would be usable in actual combat situations.
I am not trying to be-little LARPing, I actual think this is a fun activity, so please don't think I have anything against LARPing.
The technique is severely flawed and would result in serious maiming or death of a person in a real combat situation. Sorry to be so tenacious on a point.
In terms of actual combat, FH is likely correct. However, it IS a fantasy game, and I love Jackie Chan movies, even if they're sometimes silly. I'd make a new feat: Pole Shield (Prereq: 2-weapon fighting, Weapon Focus in polearm), that functioned just like Dodge except provided a +1 shield bonus to AC instead of a Dodge bonus. Now everyone can be happy: game balance is restored (this feat is separate from 2-weapon defense, so it is useless unless he keeps a grip on his polearm); the LARP pole-shield enthusiasts have their style back, and experienced pugilists like Fakey and I aren't too annoyed because of excessive bonuses being granted. Silly? Maybe. Fun? Quite possibly.
|
|
You encase your hand in metal and let me try to knock a 12 lb weapon out of your hand with a long sword and I will guarantee that your hand will be non-functional for quite some time afterwards.
The mass of the weapon is an advantage in this usage. Most of the weight is taken by the ground, but the mass still needs to be accelerated by a blow. Basic physics: F=ma. Hold "F" constant, increase "m", and "a" decreases. You have to let the mass do the work.
As to the gauntlets, I don't know whether you've ever worked with clamshells. Their backs are curved such that the same piece touches the polearm on both sides of the hand. This allows the metal to absorb nearly all the energy of even very strong blows. You have to be careful about your thumb (tuck the tip of the thumb protection under the tip of the hand protection), but they work very well even against mass weapons. Armor works very well.
I trained for 10 years in martial arts and weapons forms. There is a technique that is used similar to what you are stating but it involves 2 handed staff weilding. No secondary weapon (and certainly not a second weapon as a primary weapon).
I've trained in martial arts as well, both eastern and western. IME, eastern martial arts as usually taught are fundamentally light fighting. Heavy is very different. (And western fighting techniques were as well developed as eastern, of course.)
I think this may point to a fundamental misinterpretation. When used in this way, a polearm is not functioning as a weapon, it is functioning as a narrow, braced shield.
--Snip--
LARPing is fun but it is NOT in anyway, shape or form, a good barometer of what would be usable in actual combat situations.
I am not trying to be-little LARPing, I actual think this is a fun activity, so please don't think I have anything against LARPing.
I have liked LARPing too, but this is not based on that experience. IME, LARP weapons are too light and their speeds too different for real comparisons.
The technique is severely flawed and would result in serious maiming or death of a person in a real combat situation. Sorry to be so tenacious on a point.
I don't mind your tenacity if you don't mind mine.
8-)
|
|
A serious response deserves a serious reply.
With regard to the mobility of the polearm - they are unwieldy one handed - particularly in the off hand, it is my assumption that the sword is in the dominant hand. This creates and impediment for the sword polearm combatant - his sword arm needs to come across the width of his frame the and the length of the defendig arm before being able to engage and attacker - plus the sword polearm fighter doesn't not have the same ability to swing the sword - he cannot use his hips and shoulders in the same and the arc of his sword is limited by the pole he has "braced" on the ground - thus reducing, options, power, and range.
Absolutely, which is why I suggested a mechanic that trades attack for defense.
The polearm itself while having some mobility constrains the abiltiy to parry with the sword and well ...
True enough, and perhaps more than the constraint from a shield, but then I've not suggested a mechanic that is as broadly useful as a shield. (Shields certainly also limit range, and flexibility of attacks and parries.)
... and while bracing the pole may allow the wielder to take of some shock from heavy blows it also severely constrains the wielders abilty to protect his back and neck and arm if raised from being braced to parry - this weapon (which is designed to be used with two heads) weiled in one hand will be slow and an opponent not similarly hindered even if effectively blocked - will be able to follow up with the polearm/sword wielder largely exposed.
Add to this the opportunity to set the polearm/sword wielder up - by attacking the polearm rather than the wielder - the attacker can set the two weapon fight up for a number of particularly difficult blows to defend against - back, neck, arm - and this attacks against thepolearm can easily be made with an open hand a kick, or even a shield. If the polearm wielder elects to drop the pole he has to adjust tactics.
Well, we're way down into tactical details, here, but there are responses to those tactics as well. Off-arm vulnerability is the only one I see as notably higher than other styles. To a large extent, this can be managed by dynamically changing your body distance from opponent and pole-arm, position of polearm between yourself and your opponent, and the angle at which you hold the pole. These considerations are not especially different from those with any other weapon style. (For instance, most shields make it difficult to defend your lower lead leg and back.) Every style has strengths and weaknesses.
To be able to use any two weapon fighting style effectively -requires a fair bit of training, this is acknowledged in the game by the feat trees around two weapon fighting.
Indeed. Skill Tricks (which I suggested) require the use of skill points -- training.
Effective two weapon fighting also presumes weapons suitable to the task - again a reality acknowledged in the game by thhe rules about light weapon in the off hand and the various penalties.
True enough, though I submit that this isn't two-weapon fighting as understood in D&D. At least the version I'm suggesting doesn't allow any more, or any more effective, attacks. In fact, the only benefit accrues from taking a penalty on attacks to get an advantage on defense. Perhaps this was not clear from my (short) original post, but it is inherent in the mechanic.
While I acknowledge that the scenario described is not specifically dealt with in the rules - I think that is because given the precedent set by the rules that are present - that two weapon fighting with a longsword in one hand and a two handed weapon in the offhand - was perceived as outside of reasonable expectation (even before the issue of fighting defensivle with one hand while fighting normally with the other is raised
I think that the OP was looking for a mechanic for a "scenario ... not specifically dealt with in the rules". I contend that mine was reasonable from the point of view of both RL and the existing rules mechanics. Sorry if you disagree.
Adding my two cents in this discussion, I'd say allowing the character to use the polearm in his off-hand to defend (but not attack) using the Two Weapon Defense feat doesn't break game balance or my suspension of disbelief. Doug Sundseth has given a good mechanical description of how to do so.
In fact, he sounds like he's a polearm fighter in the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA), which is definitely not LARPing. There are rules to minimize injuries, but the fights involve people wearing functional armor and swinging blunt weapon equivalents at full force. I'm a sword and shield fighter, myself, and can tell you that polearms can be effectively used for defense in this manner.
I've also seen people come into the SCA from a martial arts background and many of them are poor heavy-weapon (i.e. armored) fighters. Most martial arts do not train on how to move in or penetrate armor. Your balance and the movements you need to use are very different when wearing 20-40+ lbs of leather and metal. Also, when facing armored opponents you need to stab/swing through the target instead of one inch into them (as fencing and many eastern martial arts train to keep from leaving yourself open) and draw-cuts are not as useful as against unarmored opponents. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are different combat paradigms emphasizing different techniques. Kendo is probably the most widely trained style that works well with armored combat, most of the rest do not.
There is one feat that I would consider having this player take in addition to TWF: Oversize TWF from Complete Adventurer. One handed weapons are treated as light for the purposes of determining two weapon penalties, and could be expanded (DM's discretion) to allow use of a two handed weapon as one handed in the off hand but... I must confess this sounds a bit questionable. However, if the group is comfortable with it ehh go ahead. Bear one other thing in mind however: if three opponents gang up on this guy, one of them will be able to manoeuvre to behind the character and crack him on the helm with a mace or greatsword etc. Probably works best against 1-2 opponents, like Dodge: The fewer opponents, the better.