| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last night I had a disagreement with some of my players that I found surprising. One of them plays a 5' tall wood elf ranger/scout who wields a guisarme, and for some reason seemed to think that he could sheathe his polearm across his back while he drew his bow. My refusal to allow him to do so drew protests from two other players as well--they all felt that despite the fact that traveling around with a 12' weapon on a 5' elf's back defies all logic, he should be allowed to do so because the rules as written don't seem to prevent it. They grudgingly accepted my ruling, but felt I was being unreasonable. They also felt he should be able to store it in his handy haversack instead, but I argued that such items aren't generally made to house something that long (not to mention the fact that the blade would rip & destroy the bag).
I did tell the player that he could have a special sheath created, along the same lines as a quiver of Ehlonna, & he was fine with that.
Anyone else have similar experiences on this matter? Has such a situation ever been addressed via Sage Advice or the like? Or is this just a result of me having not grown up playing Final Fantasy and other games where characters use and carry vastly oversized weapons?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you were correct. There's no way to "sheath" a weapon of that size. Heck, even a greatsword requires a special scabbard that only covers half of the blade.
It sounds like your players want the game to feel more like a videogame than a roleplaying game. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I do prefer a little more realism and it sounds like you do too.
I'd say good call. And yeah, if he wants some kind of magic scabbard that stores most or all of the weapon in some kind of extra-dimensional space, I'd say that sounds reasonable.
It sounds like your players want the game to feel more like a videogame than a roleplaying game. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I do prefer a little more realism and it sounds like you do too.
Not sure if it's a video game thing (though I know 2 of them play WoW), or if it's the fact that the 3 don't really have any experience with earlier editions. First, second, and original D&D seem to have relied a lot more on DM interpretation than 3x, whereas the later's level of detail seems to result in some players cleaving to the letter of the rules rather than the spirit of them.
Doesn't the Efficient Quiver (aka Elhonna's quiver) have a space to hold a spear/staff/polearm?
Not sure if it's a video game thing (though I know 2 of them play WoW), or if it's the fact that the 3 don't really have any experience with earlier editions. First, second, and original D&D seem to have relied a lot more on DM interpretation than 3x, whereas the later's level of detail seems to result in some players cleaving to the letter of the rules rather than the spirit of them.
It sounds like your players want the game to feel more like a videogame than a roleplaying game. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I do prefer a little more realism and it sounds like you do too.
Come to the Dark Side - you too can be a minion of the the evil (corporate) overlords. The Dark Side is much less rules robust and players will get used to the DM making more situational calls.
Really every group of gamers needs to decide from the beginning just how far they are going to let the rules dictate the game. heavy reliance on rules adherence leads to wonky 'unrealistic' situations but it also means gaming with very few arguments.
Why couldn't a polearm have a strap on it that was meant to allow it be slung over the back of someone?
Why couldn't a polearm have a strap on it that was meant to allow it be slung over the back of someone?
It could. But if it's slung over the back of a 5' elf, there's either seven feet of pole above him, or he's 12 feet wide.
So I guess the issue isn't carrying the polearm. It's fitting through doors and turning around in hallways.
|
I don't know... It shouldn't be that big of a deal really. Polearms have been the weapon of choice for most soldiers throughout history, no matter how tall they are and with a little bit of training I highly doubt the weapon inhibited them that much at all.
Instead of having your player sheath his weapon, have him take the same move action it takes to sheath a weapon and instead have him jam it into the ground. He should then be able to draw his bow, fire off a shot, and then grab his polearm again with no problem. After all it's standing upright directly next to him and shouldn't take anything more than a free action to grab it again and go.
Now of course this all depends on if he's outside with soil beneath his feet, but if he's inside or underground in tight spaces than then, and only then, would I start slapping penalties on him. But I would also give them bonuses in some of those situations as well. The tight spaces can work both for and against the wielder of the polearm, it just depends on the situation I guess.
Oh and yeah, a polearm should never go in a sack, unless of course someone got clever and made a retractable polearm...
Why couldn't a polearm have a strap on it that was meant to allow it be slung over the back of someone?
Try getting into melee or drawing arrows with 5-7' of stick jutting above your head, then get back to me.
Doesn't the Efficient Quiver (aka Elhonna's quiver) have a space to hold a spear/staff/polearm?
For bows & similar-sized objects, which I read to be about 6' of space.
Doesn't the Efficient Quiver (aka Elhonna's quiver) have a space to hold a spear/staff/polearm?For bows & similar-sized objects, which I read to be about 6' of space.
You might reach a good compromise by letting him use the quiver, but have the polearm take two bow slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why couldn't a polearm have a strap on it that was meant to allow it be slung over the back of someone?Try getting into melee or drawing arrows with 5-7' of stick jutting above your head, then get back to me.
Exactly. I've walked around with replica pole arms. First, it's a matter of it catching on things. Ever tried to walk through the woods with one of these things held laterally? It gets caught. That's not the real problem though. Your companions are at risk of getting cut, whapped or sliced by your pole arm if it's sticking out to either side of you. It's not practical.
Now that said, I've allowed people to put these things in gloves of storing and whatnot. If the PC wants to spend money so it doesn't get in his way? Cool by me.
I don't know... It shouldn't be that big of a deal really. Polearms have been the weapon of choice for most soldiers throughout history, no matter how tall they are and with a little bit of training I highly doubt the weapon inhibited them that much at all.
They weren't so much a weapon of choice as a weapon of economy & convenience. I'm sure most would choose bows or crossbows, if given the chance. And I know of no soldier that would have willingly strapped his polearm to his back rather than carry it. Find some period examples of such a practice if you think that's practical.
Instead of having your player sheath his weapon, have him take the same move action it takes to sheath a weapon and instead have him jam it into the ground. He should then be able to draw his bow, fire off a shot, and then grab his polearm again with no problem. After all it's standing upright directly next to him and shouldn't take anything more than a free action to grab it again and go.
Except drawing a weapon is another move action. He could, I suppose, shoot the following round, drop the bow & grab the polearm, but this only works if he hasn't moved & isn't airborne (both of which applied in his situation).
I guess most of my players would not have come up with such an idea...
I think your ruling is fair and logical. If your players still challenge it, have them walking around with a bean pole in their hand and have them show you how they strap it to their back, to say nothing of using a bow.
A little LARPing can go a long way.
Now, the players could argue along the line of "Aww, its fantasy, so why is it impossible?" Well, I can accept that a magical creature like a dragon offsets the laws of physics in the game world, but that does not exempt everything and anything from these laws, or it would get unplayable. If the PC in question was airborne at the time, this is a rather cheap attempt to retain the pole arm - otherwise, it drops to the ground and out of his reach.
Stefan
Except drawing a weapon is another move action. He could, I suppose, shoot the following round, drop the bow & grab the polearm, but this only works if he hasn't moved & isn't airborne (both of which applied in his situation).
Was he mounted or flying under some other means?
Except drawing a weapon is another move action. He could, I suppose, shoot the following round, drop the bow & grab the polearm, but this only works if he hasn't moved & isn't airborne (both of which applied in his situation).Was he mounted or flying under some other means?
Winged boots.
|
Several points going to realism:
1) Polearms are mostly not weapons suited for use by single fighters. They're largely useful for groups.
2) Polearms other than spears or pikes were commonly about 6-8' long, not 12' long. A 12' long polearm is almost impossible to use other than as a thrusting weapon.
3) A carrying strap would be quite awkward on a polearm. It would tend to get in the way of many combat techniques.
I once had a DM who almost didn't let my elf carry a longbow in one hand and a longsword in the other. He said I needed 2 hands to carry a longbow. He made a lot of ridiculous rulings, like Fire Resistance doesn't apply to heat or hot weather.
That said, why is it such a big deal to let a PC stow his weapon like every other weapon? If they had rules to make polearms more difficult to use, then no one would use them, and everyone would use either a greatsword or greataxe. Boring.
I'm playing a glaive wielding cleric in a Pathfinder game, and I basically just always walk around with my polearm "drawn". One might say that holding the polearm in one hand, either over the shoulder, or just next to the body, and then switching to a "combat" stance, could equate the move action for drawing, but I always just drop the polearm if I need to use a different weapon. The house rule is to draw a line through two squares next to me, representing the polearm's location. I can pick it up again via any square next to those two.
I'd say your calling was fair, but don't penalize the character too much for picking a less commonly chosen weapon.
I'd say your calling was fair, but don't penalize the character too much for picking a less commonly chosen weapon.
I have no idea what the OPs situation is like but I'd not be too sympathetic until after he explains that his players are doing this all for the role playing opportunities.
From personal experience my little munchkins love pole arms, Essentially their a high damage reach weapon that does not otherwise cost a feat to use. Great Sword or Axe are good but using them means getting deeper inside the dangerous threat envelope of the larger creatures. That can draw out opportunity attacks or make it more difficult to run away. The other highly popular reach weapon, the Spiked Chain, involves using up a valuable feat. More then worth it according to the cost-benefit analysis of my players at lower levels, but not worth it at higher levels since the real strengths of the the spiked chain are its use in tripping opponents or using it as part of a whirlwind attack. Both of these abilities are of much less use at higher level where one tends to face groups of enemies that are either well spread out (to avoid the mages awesome area attacks - but it screws up whirlwind too) or so much bigger that they can't feasibly be tripped. Hence its clearly optimal from the stand point of pure munchkinism, at higher level, to use a pole arm.
I'm playing a glaive wielding cleric in a Pathfinder game, and I basically just always walk around with my polearm "drawn". One might say that holding the polearm in one hand, either over the shoulder, or just next to the body, and then switching to a "combat" stance, could equate the move action for drawing, but I always just drop the polearm if I need to use a different weapon. The house rule is to draw a line through two squares next to me, representing the polearm's location. I can pick it up again via any square next to those two.
I'd say your calling was fair, but don't penalize the character too much for picking a less commonly chosen weapon.
Yeah, maybe once in a while (or just once), have the PCs fall down a 10 foot wide pit, then have the polearm dude catch himself with his 12 foot long stick across the mouth of the pit.
Polearms size is a flaw which most players forget to think about it.
One thing you could allow to yours players is a polearm in 2 parts that they can put together for a fight (with a round or a standard action) or separate for an easier travel.
I agree that the decision is reasonable and realistic, but I would allow a player to "sheathe" a polearm anyways. My feeling is that if I make a bunch of decisions based on what I think is realistic, then the game might start to unravel like a house of cards and I'd spend all my time saying "that can't be done".
E.g.
Player #1: My monk is going to tumble past the orc to get to the cleric.
DM: Are you crazy? He's carrying a 6' long quarterstaff; it's almost impossible to somersault past someone with a big piece of lumber like that. I'll give you a -10 penalty.
Player #2: My fighter is going to sheathe his greatsword as a move action.
DM: It doesn't make sense that a dagger and a greatsword take the same amount of time to sheathe. I'm going to say it takes a full round to sheathe a greatsword.
Player #3: I'm going to jump over the 30' chasm.
DM: I doubt it. The world record in the long jump is about 30' and you're wearing a suit of full plate and a heavy backpack. I don't care what the rules say; it can't be done.
Etc., etc.
I agree that the decision is reasonable and realistic, but I would allow a player to "sheathe" a polearm anyways. My feeling is that if I make a bunch of decisions based on what I think is realistic, then the game might start to unravel like a house of cards and I'd spend all my time saying "that can't be done".
I'd say your calling was fair, but don't penalize the character too much for picking a less commonly chosen weapon.
I agree, though it might be fair to make the ruling you did, I only see it as a way to discourage players from making non-standard weapon choices. You may think it is unreasonable for a person to fight with a pole standing out above their head, but then I've seen lots of fantasy art that has someone with a standard bearer in such a position and is able to fight. I don't think a reach weapon would be any harder. What is the ultimate goal of getting upset about this issue?
Essentially their a high damage reach weapon that does not otherwise cost a feat to use. Great Sword or Axe are good but using them means getting deeper inside the dangerous threat envelope of the larger creatures. That can draw out opportunity attacks or make it more difficult to run away.
I don't think it is really possible to show that typical reach weapons (ignoring the spiked chain for now) are more powerful than other weapon choices. Their "high damage" is usually lower than other weapon choices (this is a balancing feature of reach weapons). The benefits to reach is negated by the fact that they can't hit anything close up, which means if you get stuck against a wall and can't take a 5 ft step back, you are basically weaponless. Don't get me wrong, the chance to get an AoO on someone without reach that charges you is a pretty big bonus, but after that first attack, their benefit is gone.
On a slightly off-topic but related note, just FYI for everyone. A halberd is not a reach weapon. I'm sure most of you already knew that, it is just in discussions like this, this issue comes up from time to time.
...wields a guisarme, and for some reason seemed to think that he could sheathe his polearm across his back while he drew his bow. My refusal to allow him to do so drew protests from two other players as well--they all felt that despite the fact that traveling around with a 12' weapon on a 5' elf's back defies all logic, he should be allowed to do so because the rules as written don't seem to prevent it...
This is very puzzling to me.
The rules as written don't prevent the player from eating the guisarme, either -- would they side with the player if he wanted to do that?!
|
If he wants to keep his really long weapon while flying, have him tie a rope to it so he can sling it over his back should the need arise. In my personal opinion, reach weapons aren't the same length as the reach they provide, and a 12' weapon is just ridiculous. You have a 5' reach normally, and the weapon extends that by another 5 feet, give or take another foot or two. Standardly, I think that spear would be considered a size catagory larger, making it huge, thereby making it unusable by the elf anyways if I remember the rules correctly. Any person cannot wield a weapon that is two size categories larger than himself/herself, unless other circumstances (such as magic or special feats) explicitly say otherwise.
|
On a slightly off-topic but related note, just FYI for everyone. A halberd is not a reach weapon. I'm sure most of you...
You mean, it isn't a reach weapon anymore, which in terms of the game-physics is fine, since a halberd is no longer than a greatsword. If you make halberds have reach, then greatswords should too.
On the whole debate about polearm sheathing - DM fiat to make up a rule for that since none exists. Now, if the polearm discriptions said "you can carry this like any other weapon", then the players would have a case - but since the game ignores many physical limitations like this, it is fair for the DM to make a ruling.
One player I know once tried to carry 6 halberds at once, and since even the encumbrance rules were not being broken, this was technically "okay" - until the DM told him it was ridiculous.
I always get an image of his character with a halberd tied to each arm, two crossed on his back, and two tied to his legs.
You mean, it isn't a reach weapon anymore, ...
I ... guess so. I can't speak about previous editions, just saying in both 3rd and 3.5, it is not a reach weapon. Perhaps if it was in early editions then that might explain the confusion from longer term gamers.
I always laughed at when the enlarged human fighter tried to wield a monkey-gripped reach polearm. Looking at the size progressions, assuming it was an 8 foot long weapon (when medium) on a 6 foot human (medium again), the end result is a 12 foot tall human (large from enlarge) wielding a 32 foot long polearm (8 base, 16 from monkey-gripping a large version, 32 from enlarge).
32 feet! It almost works with the whole 20 reach of the large medium creature, since the polearm isnt very optimal when held by the base. But still. The logistics were insane.
And it was way worse with the Wu-Jen who cast Giant Size with a longspear. Came up to something like 160 feet long, but the reach was only 50.
Personally, I was always hoping for a better fix on the 3.- size category mechanics. For a lot of reasons.
I always laughed at when the enlarged human fighter tried to wield a monkey-gripped reach polearm. Looking at the size progressions, assuming it was an 8 foot long weapon (when medium) on a 6 foot human (medium again), the end result is a 12 foot tall human (large from enlarge) wielding a 32 foot long polearm (8 base, 16 from monkey-gripping a large version, 32 from enlarge).
Putting on my "realism" hat for a second, I don't think you can just double the length. If the weight is doubled (which it says it is), then if the weapon expands in all three directions, the length should only be multiplied the cube root of 2 (~26% longer), not doubled. Of course you could assume that the width and depth of the weapon do not change, but that seems a bit silly, since the tensile strength of such material would be extremely weakened by expanding only the length.
Here's a way to make it work well in-game without breaking realism: the polearm has a locking hinge halfway along it. Therefore, the character can flip a switch, fold it in half and sheathe it.
Yes, because medieval settings still forging weapons had a deep understanding of mechanical contraptions. Wouldn't the hinge weaken the integrity of the wooden haft of the polearm. In order to get that to work well, it might take more than a free- to move-action to draw, reopen, and lock-in-place the polearm. Seems like too much trouble. Better off just carrying it as normal and tying on a dummy-cord.
|
|
You mean, it isn't a reach weapon anymore, ...I ... guess so. I can't speak about previous editions, just saying in both 3rd and 3.5, it is not a reach weapon. Perhaps if it was in early editions then that might explain the confusion from longer term gamers.
My mistake, I was remembering 3rd Edition, when my group houseruled halberds as reach weapons.
Didn't Arms and Equipment or Magic Item Compendium have "collapsing" weapons. I believe it was considered a "magic" property of a weapon, which helps explain the realism break.
|
|
Here's a way to make it work well in-game without breaking realism: the polearm has a locking hinge halfway along it. Therefore, the character can flip a switch, fold it in half and sheathe it.Yes, because medieval settings still forging weapons had a deep understanding of mechanical contraptions. Wouldn't the hinge weaken the integrity of the wooden haft of the polearm. In order to get that to work well, it might take more than a free- to move-action to draw, reopen, and lock-in-place the polearm. Seems like too much trouble. Better off just carrying it as normal and tying on a dummy-cord.
I didn't say it was perfect, but it makes more sense than walking through a narrow hallway or a dense forest or whatever carrying a 12 foot stick.
Yes, because medieval settings still forging weapons had a deep understanding of mechanical contraptions.
Except D&D games are not "medieval settings", there are lots of "mechanical contraptions" in them. Just look at the locks in the PHB as a very basic example. Besides is anyone going to suggest that gnomes and/or dwarves couldn't come up with some kind of "mechanical contraption" like a folding switch? And once they figure out how to do it, then the humans are going to copy it and sell it to everyone else.
I didn't say it was perfect, but it makes more sense than walking through a narrow hallway or a dense forest or whatever carrying a 12 foot stick.
That's generally because polearms were not designed as "travelling weapons". They are better suited for standing defense or phalanx types of offense. Generally, nobody in their right mind would carry a polearm anyplace like a forest or a corridor unless they were planning on staying in one place and defending a particular spot from people moving more freely. They were mainly meant to keep people at bay while other units (say, archers) dispatched the enemy. They are meant to be more of a large scale combat weapon than a personal combat weapon.
That doesn't mean someone can't carry them as a personal weapon, but they have to accept the consequences of their weapon being twice their size. That includes the disads of a cumbersome and unwieldy weapon in closed spaces.
Also, in general, the dudes with the polearms weren't also archers. There were other guys who handled that. The guy in question would be better off just chopping a good chunk of the haft off and using it as a battleaxe or something similar.
A 'folding' polearm that screws together, in the way that pool cues do, would probably be pretty popular with the adventuring crowd, and any blacksmith could make one. I'd make it a full round action to take it apart or put it together, but if you're worried about the logistical issues of a 12-foot pole, it'd be a reasonable thing to introduce to the game.
Maybe that's why the ten-foot pole in the PHB costs so much: it's really two five-foot poles with a screw fitting.
One that actually folds might be a bit more complex. Folding switches aren't that hard to make, but they would be hard to make in a manner that didn't weaken the shaft or introduce a weak point.
|
|
A 'folding' polearm that screws together, in the way that pool cues do, would probably be pretty popular with the adventuring crowd, and any blacksmith could make one. I'd make it a full round action to take it apart or put it together, but if you're worried about the logistical issues of a 12-foot pole, it'd be a reasonable thing to introduce to the game.
Maybe that's why the ten-foot pole in the PHB costs so much: it's really two five-foot poles with a screw fitting.
One that actually folds might be a bit more complex. Folding switches aren't that hard to make, but they would be hard to make in a manner that didn't weaken the shaft or introduce a weak point.
Good idea. It works better than mine, because it won't weaken the shaft.
Also, I'm pretty sure I saw a ten-foot pole like you described in a sourcebook somewhere, but I don't know where.
Except D&D games are not "medieval settings", there are lots of "mechanical contraptions" in them. Just look at the locks in the PHB as a very basic example. Besides is anyone going to suggest that gnomes and/or dwarves couldn't come up with some kind of "mechanical contraption" like a folding switch? And once they figure out how to do it, then the humans are going to copy it and sell it to everyone else.
If they are still needing to use blacksmiths to forge a vast majority of their weapons, it's a medieval society. Otherwise, they would have developed gunpowder, firearms, and explosives to take over a majority of the weaponry. The "fantasy settings are not medieval settings" defense is more of a justification to ignore societal interactions that are the basis of cultures. It's a ROLE-playing game. That alone denotes that the setting, culture, and technological advancements have some influence on how characters develop.
And a lock is structurally unrelated to inserting a break into the middle of a weapon whose advantage is its structural stability over the length of the weapon. Putting a hinge or break in the middle of it adds a weakening element to the weapon and compromises its ability to perform its task. Locks have been around for centuries because the early ones were larger, heavier, and completely unlike a Master lock of modern times. That's why you could get long wires and picks into them to move the mechanism. There was no worry about structural integrity over the length of the lock.
I'm just sayin ... cut the big ole weapon to a manageable size. Adding a hinge will eventually do that for you and probably not at the moment you would really want it to.
A 'folding' polearm that screws together, in the way that pool cues do, would probably be pretty popular with the adventuring crowd, and any blacksmith could make one. I'd make it a full round action to take it apart or put it together, but if you're worried about the logistical issues of a 12-foot pole, it'd be a reasonable thing to introduce to the game.
Maybe that's why the ten-foot pole in the PHB costs so much: it's really two five-foot poles with a screw fitting.
One that actually folds might be a bit more complex. Folding switches aren't that hard to make, but they would be hard to make in a manner that didn't weaken the shaft or introduce a weak point.
Good idea. It works better than mine, because it won't weaken the shaft.
Also, I'm pretty sure I saw a ten-foot pole like you described in a sourcebook somewhere, but I don't know where.
See, that I can get behind. It works, but it takes longer to get it ready. I can see that happening.
Of course it still wouldn't make the OP's players any happier with how long it might take them to do things with them weapon, but it's a viable alternative.
2) Polearms other than spears or pikes were commonly about 6-8' long, not 12' long. A 12' long polearm is almost impossible to use other than as a thrusting weapon.
Even so, no one 5' tall will be carrying a 6-8' weapon on his back.
The length is based on the guisarme being a reach slashing weapon--considering that at least 2-3' of the haft will be taken up by hand space, it's hard to justify a reach weapon being 6'-8' long using the 5' spacing rules.
As an aside, could you refer me to a reputable source on polearm lengths? I write up detailed descriptions on the appearance of all my player's major magic items, & wasn't able to find anything online about guisarme lengths--thus, I assumed a 10' haft (with 2' blade) was appropriate for reach purposes.
As an aside, could you refer me to a reputable source on polearm lengths? I write up detailed descriptions on the appearance of all my player's major magic items, & wasn't able to find anything online about guisarme lengths--thus, I assumed a 10' haft (with 2' blade) was appropriate for reach purposes.
Heck, there were tons of these types of things during 1e. Some old Dragon mags had articles on polearms. THe 1e Unearthed Arcana had a section on them. If I was nearly my old Dragons at the moment, I cold tell you where to look. I'll see what I can pull up.
I once had a DM who almost didn't let my elf carry a longbow in one hand and a longsword in the other. He said I needed 2 hands to carry a longbow.
Two hands to use it, but only one to carry it.
He made a lot of ridiculous rulings, like Fire Resistance doesn't apply to heat or hot weather.
It does apply. However, I would not let fire resistance protect someone from suffocation, such as spending several minutes in a burning building or submerged in molten lava.
That said, why is it such a big deal to let a PC stow his weapon like every other weapon? If they had rules to make polearms more difficult to use, then no one would use them, and everyone would use either a greatsword or greataxe. Boring.
Then why not let PCs use polearms in close combat, "like every other weapon"? If I wanted to store a weapon twice my size on my back, I'd play Final Fantasy. And in case you haven't noticed, 3x is pretty much set up to give melee fighters using greatswords & greataxes the advantage, ala Power Attack.
I'm playing a glaive wielding cleric in a Pathfinder game, and I basically just always walk around with my polearm "drawn". One might say that holding the polearm in one hand, either over the shoulder, or just next to the body, and then switching to a "combat" stance, could equate the move action for drawing,
IMO, if the polearm is in your hand, it's drawn--I wouldn't make you take a move action to assume a "combat stance."
IMO, if the polearm is in your hand, it's drawn--I wouldn't make you take a move action to assume a "combat stance."
Well there may be a difference between "drawn" and "readied". For example, if you were carrying a polearm in one hand, that means your other hand could be free to throw a dagger or something, but that might also mean that you couldn't make attacks with the polearm in that case since you are using your other hand for something else (and you need two hands to use a polearm).
I have no idea what the OPs situation is like but I'd not be too sympathetic until after he explains that his players are doing this all for the role playing opportunities.
The player is actually pretty new to D&D. He was sold on the character concept by a fellow player who plays in several other games, and from what I know and have heard about his other groups, they tend to focus heavily on using & trying out new rules. I was fine with letting the new player play a pole-wielding scout with a level of ranger (for the martial weapon proficiency, of course), & even helped him develop a backstory to explain why he'd use a pole in the first place, but I sure as hell wasn't going to allow any "I'm carrying it on my back" shenanigans.
Heck, there were tons of these types of things during 1e. Some old Dragon mags had articles on polearms. THe 1e Unearthed Arcana had a section on them. If I was nearly my old Dragons at the moment, I cold tell you where to look. I'll see what I can pull up.
As an aside, could you refer me to a reputable source on polearm lengths? I write up detailed descriptions on the appearance of all my player's major magic items, & wasn't able to find anything online about guisarme lengths--thus, I assumed a 10' haft (with 2' blade) was appropriate for reach purposes.
Yes, I have "The Nomenclature of Polearms" (in an issue of Dragon, & reprinted in "Best of Dragon" & UA) but I think it mainly talked about the uses and head shapes of the various polearms, not actual length.
|
|
As an aside, could you refer me to a reputable source on polearm lengths? I write up detailed descriptions on the appearance of all my player's major magic items, & wasn't able to find anything online about guisarme lengths--thus, I assumed a 10' haft (with 2' blade) was appropriate for reach purposes.
a little more than 9 feet, according to this.
So using the screw method, it would be two 4.5 foot poles. Managable for a 5 foot tall character.
Yes, I have "The Nomenclature of Polearms" (in an issue of Dragon, & reprinted in "Best of Dragon" & UA) but I think it mainly talked about the uses and head shapes of the various polearms, not actual length.Heck, there were tons of these types of things during 1e. Some old Dragon mags had articles on polearms. THe 1e Unearthed Arcana had a section on them. If I was nearly my old Dragons at the moment, I cold tell you where to look. I'll see what I can pull up.
As an aside, could you refer me to a reputable source on polearm lengths? I write up detailed descriptions on the appearance of all my player's major magic items, & wasn't able to find anything online about guisarme lengths--thus, I assumed a 10' haft (with 2' blade) was appropriate for reach purposes.
Good old Appendix T...
Lengths are mentioned for some the various pole-weapons. Cross-referencing the 3.5 PHB with the 1st Ed AD&D PHB and UA weapon tables:
Shortspear- generally about 5-6 ft in length, including the spear head (which may be 1-2 ft long and broad enough to use as a slashing weapon)
Longspear- generally about 7-12 ft in length, including the spear head (same as the shortspear); note that it's possible to use a longspear in one hand as a thrusting weapon (i.e., Greek Hopolites), with appropriate training (perhaps a feat)
Glaive- generally about 8 ft long; could be used as a piercing or slashing weapon, later versions (glave-guisarmes) added a hook to the back of the weapon head; change the damage to 2d4 and the damage type to piercing or slashing, with glaive-guisarmes costing 15 gp and can be used to trip; glaives can be used to simulate voulges and glaive-guisarmes can be used to simulate Lochaber axes and voulge-guisarmes
Guisarme- generally about 8 ft long; pretty much as presented in the 3.5 PHB; can be used to simulate similar weapons such as bill-hooks and fauchards
Halberd- generally about 5-6 ft long; longer versions existed, but the weapon head needed to be made smaller to make it useable (treat as a gaive-guisarme)
Ranseur- generally about 8 ft long; can be used to simulate similar weapons such as the partisan and spetum