What would be the perceived benefit of allowing a character to "sheathe" a polearm as any other weapon? What would be the benefit of disallowing it?
I'd let a player do it, either by slinging it over his shoulder, or possibly through a screw in half/fold as mentioned in this thread. I wouldn't penalize a character for using a non-standard weapon by imposing mechanical difficulties on him.
Cheers! :)
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.
For my players the benefit of making others go through your AoO zone, while nice, is not really the major value. Its staying outside of the monsters threat zone thats more important. I suppose there is a danger of being stuck against a wall, but thats more of a tactical issue. You can usually get around it through careful placement of your miniature or by being under the effects of something like fly. In any case I'm not really trying to mathematically show it to be true. My anecdotal evidence is that my players are munchkins and they've gravitated toward these weapons having the most munchkin potential for higher level PCs.
|
I've never heard of anyone giving grief over a Greataxe or Greatsword getting sheathed or drawn, I just don't see the point in worrying over the issue.
Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.
If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.
Doesn't say anything there about polearms following different rules.
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. Most reach double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
Nothing here about different rules for Polearms either.
Guisarme: A guisarme has reach. You can strike opponents 10 feet away with it, but you can’t use it against an adjacent foe.
You can also use it to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the guisarme to avoid being tripped.
Nothing in the weapon description either.
If you decide to make the weapon more cumbersome with houseruled restrictions you need to keep in mind that the weapon is no longer balanced against the un-restricted weapons. A greatsword is a tough weapon to sheathe in real life in half a round, yet that is allowed. Hell, a battle axe is gonna be difficult to sheathe safely in that time and that's a one-handed weapon. What about a whip? I can't see that being 'sheathed' very quickly either. Shortspear? How does that even get sheathed?
My point is, it's a game. Realism is all fine and dandy but it's also alot of work. Slings have a higher distance record in real life than a longbow and can blast through a sheet of 3/4" plywood with ease leaving a 3-4" round hole. If you go for realism you are gonna end up with everyone trying to inject their own personal ideals for realistic options.
People claim that they can do cartwheels and back hand springs in platemail in real life and I saw a video of it once. So do we change the maximum dex bonus for Plate? If you do you start messing with the game mechanics and balance.
Just my 2.
FakeHealer has the right of it, in my mind, but said it much better than me. :)
|
The one thing I'd fudge on would be with Heward's Haversack (or Quiver of Ehlonna). So long as the polearm itself has a sheath covering the blade, then allowing it in either would be okay in my game.
With the Haversack, I'd focus on weight over size.
With the Quiver, I'd focus on allowances, i.e., spear, javelin, bow, polearm.
But that's just me.
... Doesn't say anything there about polearms following different rules.
... Nothing here about different rules for Polearms either.
... Nothing in the weapon description either.
The rules also don't cover proper nutrition. If one of your players decides that his character will subsist a diet of tree bark and shoe leather, I suppose you'd be okay with it? Common sense should prevail over slavish devotion to the rules.
If you decide to make the weapon more cumbersome with houseruled restrictions you need to keep in mind that the weapon is no longer balanced against the un-restricted weapons.
I seriously doubt refusing to allow a polearm to be slung across ones back is going to unbalance the game. In fact, always having the weapon at ready could likely provide an advantage--he has his weapon in hand while everyone else has to take a move action to draw.
... Slings have a higher distance record in real life than a longbow and can blast through a sheet of 3/4" plywood with ease leaving a 3-4" round hole.
Source, please.
If you go for realism you are gonna end up with everyone trying to inject their own personal ideals for realistic options.
People claim that they can do cartwheels and back hand springs in platemail in real life and I saw a video of it once. So do we change the maximum dex bonus for Plate? If you do you start messing with the game mechanics and balance.
No, because the same guy you saw in the video could likely do it better without the platemail. That's why the armor check penalty applies to skills like Tumble.
A friend of mine once said "there's suspension of disbelief and then there's suspension of disbelief." I can, for example, accept the fact that Superman can fly; but I can't buy him reversing the Earth's rotation to go back in time.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
Noticing a trend here - if it is longer than 6 feet in real life, it is a reach weapon (which makes sense, if you think about properly gripping a weapon, you need more than 5 feet extending from your lower arm to reach more than 5 feet (in this case 10ft). Pretty standard rules system.
Now, I don't disagree with Fake Healer in that sheathing/drawing the polearm (in a sling of some kind) should use the same rules for any other weapon. But having the polearm sheathed should interfere with movement given realistic restrictions - but for the most part can be avoided. After all, this is a game where people fire bows without penalty with 30 pounds of equipment in a backpack. In other words, if you are moving through a 5-foot -wide corridor, you guide the polearm to extend forwards rather than across your back. I would say guiding the weapon is a free action, and you need an arm free to do so - so in almost any situation, such a rule is irrelevant.
Heck, there may even be situations where it is beneficial to have the polearm interfere with movement. I can't think of the movie off-hand, but a character falls into a pit with a pole attached to them and is spared certain death as the pole is wider than the pit. Anyone else remember the movie/scene? Maybe it was one of the Ninja Turtles live action series?
But no squeezing into 5x5x5ft cubes with one - that is out of the question.
|
|
... Doesn't say anything there about polearms following different rules.
... Nothing here about different rules for Polearms either.
... Nothing in the weapon description either.
The rules also don't cover proper nutrition. If one of your players decides that his character will subsist a diet of tree bark and shoe leather, I suppose you'd be okay with it? Common sense should prevail over slavish devotion to the rules.
If you decide to make the weapon more cumbersome with houseruled restrictions you need to keep in mind that the weapon is no longer balanced against the un-restricted weapons.I seriously doubt refusing to allow a polearm to be slung across ones back is going to unbalance the game. In fact, always having the weapon at ready could likely provide an advantage--he has his weapon in hand while everyone else has to take a move action to draw.
... Slings have a higher distance record in real life than a longbow and can blast through a sheet of 3/4" plywood with ease leaving a 3-4" round hole.Source, please.
If you go for realism you are gonna end up with everyone trying to inject their own personal ideals for realistic options.
People claim that they can do cartwheels and back hand springs in platemail in real life and I saw a video of it once. So do we change the maximum dex bonus for Plate? If you do you start messing with the game mechanics and balance.No, because the same guy you saw in the video could likely do it better without the platemail. That's why the armor check penalty applies to skills like Tumble.
A friend of mine once said "there's suspension of disbelief and then there's suspension of disbelief." I can, for example, accept the fact that Superman can fly; but I can't buy him reversing the Earth's rotation to go back in time.
Oh goody, one of those 'let me pick you apart, point by point' posts. Lovely.
In regards to the nutrition part of your post.....From the SRD-
STARVATION AND THIRST
Characters might find themselves without food or water and with no means to obtain them. In normal climates, Medium characters need at least a gallon of fluids and about a pound of decent food per day to avoid starvation. (Small characters need half as much.) In very hot climates, characters need two or three times as much water to avoid dehydration.
A character can go without water for 1 day plus a number of hours equal to his Constitution score. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each hour (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage.
A character can go without food for 3 days, in growing discomfort. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each day (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage.
Characters who have taken nonlethal damage from lack of food or water are fatigued. Nonlethal damage from thirst or starvation cannot be recovered until the character gets food or water, as needed—not even magic that restores hit points heals this damage.
In regards to the balance issues, A heavy crossbow does more damage than a light crossbow. This is balanced by an increased load time (which is nowhere close to how one can really be loaded). A reach weapon does less damage to balance out the reach aspect of the weapon. If you make so that the weapon doesn't follow the rules laid out for weapons then you are making that weapon less usable, whether you personally wish to admit it or not. A weapon that must be tossed down in order to use a ranged weapon, or that takes longer to stow than normal would be given an increased benefit to be balanced against the other weapons. You can choose to ignore that and shrug it off as an inconsequential difference if you wish but there is a balance change in doing so.
On the plate thing, yes I am sure the guy could do better without, however plate in D&D says that everyone has an effective 12(or less) dexterity while wearing it, whether they have a 16 or a 26 to start with. That is the 'realism issue' with plate that I was pointing out.
And finally the 'you need to prove yourself, Fakey' post about slings....
Slinging.org
Sling Ranges and records.
A Quote from the site "For comparison, the current World Flight record for a "historically accurate" English longbow and horn/sinew composite bow is 306m and 566m respectively. It should be noted, however, that these ranges were achieved using light-weight flight arrows designed for range, and not for combat."
Jerzy Gasperowicz in 2006 used a Bipointed lead shot with a sling and threw sidearm to a distance of 505m.
Oh goody, one of those 'let me pick you apart, point by point'...
Yawn.
In regards to the nutrition part of your post.....
From the SRD-
STARVATION AND THIRST
Characters might find themselves without food or water and with no means to obtain them. In normal climates, Medium characters need at least a gallon of fluids and about a pound of decent food per day to avoid starvation. (Small characters need half as much.) In very hot climates, characters need two or three times as much water to avoid dehydration. . . . .
Very good junior--you can copy & paste! Obviously you didn't understand my point. The SRD does not address proper nutrition--the above only addresses starvation & thirst. Please note that "decent food" is not defined, and shoe leather & tree bark could very well prevent starvation, but wouldn't be very nutritious.
. . . A reach weapon does less damage to balance out the reach aspect of the weapon.
Considering the damage varies by only 1-2 points on average, I would argue that keeping your opponent an extra square away, fewer AOO's directed your way, & more chances for you to dish out AOO's more than makes up for an average of 4-8 points less damage per round for a character with a high BAB.
If you make so that the weapon doesn't follow the rules laid out for weapons then you are making that weapon less usable, whether you personally wish to admit it or not.
No, I'm ruling on the side of common sense rather than slavish devotion to the rules. As someone pointed out on another thread, the RAW indicate that your average farmer (Commoner 1) would not be able to identify a cow, wolf, skunk, or other animals using Knowledge (Nature). I'm sure you'd houserule on the side of common sense on that one, wouldn't you?
A weapon that must be tossed down in order to use a ranged weapon, or that takes longer to stow than normal would be given an increased benefit to be balanced against the other weapons.
All melee weapons must be tossed down in order to use a ranged weapon in the same round. The vast majority of players I know would prefer to make one move-equivalent and an attack rather than 2 move-equivalents. And as I pointed out before, always having a weapon in hand will usually be more beneficial than not being able to sheathe it. Imagine how stupid it would be if a troupe of glaive-wielding caravan guards suprised by a goblin ambush had to waste an action drawing their glaives.
You can choose to ignore that and shrug it off as an inconsequential difference if you wish but there is a balance change in doing so.
You must run a fragile game if weapon-sheathing issues are going to unbalance it.
On the plate thing, yes I am sure the guy could do better without, however plate in D&D says that everyone has an effective 12(or less) dexterity while wearing it, whether they have a 16 or a 26 to start with. . . . .
It says nothing of the sort--it just limits the dexterity bonus to AC. Just to prove I can also quote the SRD:
"Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer’s ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn’t affect any other Dexterity-related abilities."
A Quote from the site "For comparison, the current World Flight record for a "historically accurate" English longbow and horn/sinew composite bow is 306m and 566m respectively. It should be noted, however, that these ranges were achieved using light-weight flight arrows designed for range, and not for combat."
Jerzy Gasperowicz in 2006 used a Bipointed lead shot with a sling and threw sidearm to a distance of 505m.
Looking over that site and a few others, the distance advantage seems to be chiefly due to bows being shot in a straight line while slings used a high arc of trajectory. Therefore, I would assume that the sling's range increment is smaller because of the greater difficulty in aiming along a high arc.
I'm very surprised that this point has never been a point of contention in my very contentious gaming group.
SHHHHHH.....quiet please. If they hear, they'll have years of retro-arguing to make up for.
|
|
A bunch of closed-minded stuff.....
Ok, so I am done with you. You want to decide to ignore anything reasonable that I have to say to make yourself feel superior, like making up that the bows in my comparison must of been shot in a straight line and I don't feel like participating in your ego boost.
Ignore anything that anyone says who has a different opinion than you if you wish.I prefer to look at things from different angles to actually see what is a good idea instead of just deciding that my own idea is the only right one and all others should be ignored.
I just offered you a different opinion. I thought that's what you were looking for, not just a pat on the back for your infallible logic and perfect gaming ideals. I won't make that mistake again.
The SRD does not address proper nutrition--the above only addresses starvation & thirst. Please note that "decent food" is not defined, and shoe leather & tree bark could very well prevent starvation, but wouldn't be very nutritious.
Perhaps different races have different standards for "decent food", while shoe leather and tree bark might not be good enough for humans it might be fine for gnolls, who knows?
Considering the damage varies by only 1-2 points on average, I would argue that keeping your opponent an extra square away, fewer AOO's directed your way, & more chances for you to dish out AOO's more than makes up for an average of 4-8 points less damage per round for a character with a high BAB.
Except reach weapons don't do that. At best it allows an AoO once as they pass through it. But then when they are 5 ft away it is no different than any other weapon, except you have to keep taking 5 ft steps to use it (which they can then take a 5 ft step to close the gap again). I do hope you made this ruling clear before the player invested any money into a reach weapon. "Sorry you have to toss your +3 ghost touch flaming glaive if you ever want to do anything with more than one hand, like use a non-throwing ranged weapon."
No, I'm ruling on the side of common sense rather than slavish devotion to the rules. As someone pointed out on another thread, the RAW indicate that your average farmer (Commoner 1) would not be able to identify a cow, wolf, skunk, or other animals using Knowledge (Nature). I'm sure you'd houserule on the side of common sense on that one, wouldn't you?
Actually what it says is:
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), ...
An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).
So if the knowledge was common for a farmer, then they could do an untrained knowledge check and identify those items. The rules for DC 10 + HD are for exotic creatures not common ones.
All melee weapons must be tossed down in order to use a ranged weapon in the same round. The vast majority of players I know would prefer to make one move-equivalent and an attack rather than 2 move-equivalents.
Unless they have quick draw. Move to put weapon away and free to quick draw and standard to make attack with ranged weapon.
It says nothing of the sort--it just limits the dexterity bonus to AC. Just to prove I can also quote the SRD:
"Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer’s ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn’t affect any other Dexterity-related abilities."
I think this is the most humours thing I've seen. You really need some practice in cut and pasting my friend. But you are right, the max dex on armor is for AC related purposes only (regular and touch). Yet there is a bigger issue, you can't use tumble in heavier armors.
You can’t use this skill if your speed has been reduced by armor, excess equipment, or loot.
Looking over that site and a few others, the distance advantage seems to be chiefly due to bows being shot in a straight line while slings used a high arc of trajectory. Therefore, I would assume that the sling's range increment is smaller because of the greater difficulty in aiming along a high arc.
If you are going to fire a weapon to see the farthest it goes, you are going to do so at an angle close to 45 degrees. Bows and arrows or slings or guns or cannons, makes no difference.
|
|
A well put-together post....
Good post, Pres, but I highly doubt that Bastard is gonna agree and now you shall feel his misguided wrath!!! How DARE you question his infallibility! You shall be punished with a point-by-point post extolling your idiocy and full of pretend facts to shoot down your claims!!!
Beware!
A well put-together post....Good post, Pres, but I highly doubt that Bastard is gonna agree and now you shall feel his misguided wrath!!! How DARE you question his infallibility! You shall be punished with a point-by-point post extolling your idiocy and full of pretend facts to shoot down your claims!!!
Beware!
You two need to drop the extremely insulting posts. It's like watching 3 year olds pick on the kid they don't like. The rude an insulting tones I've seen in this debate are yours.
Stop or leave. You are insulting what it means to be a gamer. Grow up.
I agree. The realism of the game must be preserved.
Good thing fighters don't regularly survive 50 foot drops onto hard stone.
Oh, wait... they do.
Well, at least they can't possibly survive the breath weapon a of a red dragon, which is often strong enough to melt solid rock.
Oh, wait... they do.
Nevertheless, I can rest assured that those fighters couldn't possibly ever survive several rounds of exposure to molten lava!
Oh, wait... they do.
Still, I'm confident that my real-life experience with bat guano is enough to rule that fireballs couldn't possibly exist.
But none of that changes the fact that it falls to us, the DMs, to tyrannically enforce our opinions over those rat-bastard players who dare to aspire to have a character who peforms heroic or, as the uncouth swine say, "cool" acts. That will teach them!
Viva la ego!
A well put-together post....Good post, Pres, but I highly doubt that Bastard is gonna agree and now you shall feel his misguided wrath!!! How DARE you question his infallibility! You shall be punished with a point-by-point post extolling your idiocy and full of pretend facts to shoot down your claims!!!
Beware!You two need to drop the extremely insulting posts. It's like watching 3 year olds pick on the kid they don't like. The rude an insulting tones I've seen in this debate are yours.
Stop or leave. You are insulting what it means to be a gamer. Grow up.
Gladly. Right after the OP, who is the one slinging textual middle fingers in his oh-so-cool passive-aggressive mode.
Gladly. Right after the OP, who is the one slinging textual middle fingers in his oh-so-cool passive-aggressive mode.
Seriously, is your life so empty that you need to "win" an argument on an online messageboard? Quit polluting the reading for the rest of us because you need to win a pissing contest.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hi, Saern. It's always a pleasure to see your posts.
I agree that trying to extend "realism" arguments to magic, or the ramifications of 10th-level fighters (or rogues), is pretty silly.
So, then, does realism have no place in D&D?
If it has any place, it should apply to the normal, background "medieval" world, stripped of any fantasy elements. Which is where most of the conversation has been centered.
When the topic turns to magic (gloves of storing) or other fantastic elements, then "realism" arguments take a back seat, as they've done in this conversation.
Hi, Saern. It's always a pleasure to see your posts.
I agree that trying to extend "realism" arguments to magic, or the ramifications of 10th-level fighters (or rogues), is pretty silly.
So, then, does realism have no place in D&D?
If it has any place, it should apply to the normal, background "medieval" world, stripped of any fantasy elements. Which is where most of the conversation has been centered.
When the topic turns to magic (gloves of storing) or other fantastic elements, then "realism" arguments take a back seat, as they've done in this conversation.
I enjoy your posts as well, Chris. You have my wholehearted agreement, and that is the kind of game I prefer to run. The way I see it, the mechanics should be no different for the wielder of a polearm than the wielder of a sword or any other kind of weapon; i.e., a move action to store the weapon in some way, shape, or form, and a move action to retrieve it (barring feats such as Quick Draw and other considerations). It falls to the DM and the players to decide how to interpret those rules. Maybe the character has some form of tube-sheath-thing on his back. Maybe he plants it in the ground. Going further afield, a troll may impale himself with it and go along his merry way.
In the case of narrow corridors, I don't have a problem with a polearm wielder simply turning the thing forward and horizontal and proceeding, even if the passage is crowded with other people. A fighter is just that skilled with his blade; there's no danger of him accidently skewering a friend. A rogue is just that dextrous. Whatever. I don't think the mechanics should be any different, and the wielder of a polearm shouldn't face any penalties that the wielder of a longsword doesn't as well.
Just my 2.
Seriously, is your life so empty that you need to "win" an argument on an online messageboard? Quit polluting the reading for the rest of us because you need to win a pissing contest.
Gladly. Right after the OP, who is the one slinging textual middle fingers in his oh-so-cool passive-aggressive mode.
Wow! You must be a psychologist. Or a psychic, even! From that one post you have penetrated the veil of my life and revealed all I am to be a hollow void!
I try to stay level-headed and diplomatic. I give respect when I'm shown it. And I stand up for my friends.
. . . like making up that the bows in my comparison must of been shot in a straight line . . .
I didn't make that up. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)#Combat and http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/sling.html
The later website makes the claim about the greater skill needed to effectively use a sling in combat.
& more chances for you to dish out AOO's more than makes up for an average of 4-8 points less damage per round for a character with a high BAB.Except reach weapons don't do that. At best it allows an AoO once as they pass through it. But then when they are 5 ft away it is no different than any other weapon, except you have to keep taking 5 ft steps to use it (which they can then take a 5 ft step to close the gap again). I do hope you made this ruling clear before the player invested any money into a reach weapon. "Sorry you have to toss your +3 ghost touch flaming glaive if you ever want to do anything with more than one hand, like use a non-throwing ranged weapon."
I think my point about AOO's what you're addressing here, and yes, reach weapons do "do that." My point about more chances to dish out AOO's refers to the number of squares threatened: 8 for "normal" melee weapons vs 16 for reach weapons. Not to mention anyone who wants to close & attack the pole fighter from an adjacent square will have to leave one of those 16 threatened squares (unless they're taking a 5' step, of course).
I think my point about AOO's what you're addressing here, and yes, reach weapons do "do that." My point about more chances to dish out AOO's refers to the number of squares threatened: 8 for "normal" melee weapons vs 16 for reach weapons. Not to mention anyone who wants to close & attack the pole fighter from an adjacent square will have to leave one of those 16 threatened squares (unless they're taking a 5' step, of course).
Except it doesn't cover any more angles than a regular weapon. And as you point out, only 8 opponents can get adjacent to you with regular weapons, which means that at most you are going to have 8 opponents moving in on you (assuming they were equally divided around you). Yes a reach weapon allows you the chance to get an AoO as they come in, the first time.
But once they have closed the distance and are adjacent to you, your reach advantage is now gone. The best you can do at that point is 5 ft step back and attack, which means they can 5 ft step forward and attack on their turn. And thus you'll just be doing the 5 ft step dance (I step 5 ft and attack, he steps 5 ft and attacks, ...). Worse, if they actually did happen to charge you from all eight directions, then you wouldn't have any where to move and would be effectively disarmed (since most reach weapons can't hit adjacent targets).
Besides which, the long run that first AoO advantage is going to get pretty worthless. Dexy foes are just going to tumble in or spring attack, negating it. Bulky foes are going to usually be large and have reach of their own, no advantage there. Spellcastery foes won't close and/or 5' step back out of the area. The weaknesses for using a reach weapon: lower damage and can't attack close up targets, end up making these weapons less desirable than weapons like greatswords and greataxes. With a greataxe, you don't have to worry about getting your back to a wall and not being able to attack anymore, a serious concern when using a reach weapon in close quarters.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Besides which, the long run that first AoO advantage is going to get pretty worthless. Dexy foes ... Bulky foes ... Spellcastery foes .... The weaknesses for using a reach weapon: lower damage and can't attack close up targets, end up making these weapons less desirable than weapons like greatswords and greataxes.
Hi, pres man.
It's been my experience, and the experience of players in my campaigns, that the extra 5' of reach, whether from a pole-arm or from playing aLarge PC, are oftentimes worth it.
You're right: it's not a solution to all melee problems. But an extra 5' of reach provides opportunities for a lot of maneuvers --striking foes who are engaged with intervening tank allies, tripping foes with a ranseur, or charging foes and getting in the first swing.
Using a reach weapon is a trade-off against the better damage of the great sword and great axe, but it makes Combat Reflexes more valuble, and is probably worth the feat that non-monks should take, to chocke in on the haft and use the weapon against adjacent foes.
It's been my experience, and the experience of players in my campaigns, that the extra 5' of reach, whether from a pole-arm or from playing aLarge PC, are oftentimes worth it.
Don't get me wrong, there are certainly advantages to reach weapons. But they are not so overpowered that they need to be gimped. Making it impossible to carry them and use a bow is just needless gimpage, which adds nothing to the fun of the game and just makes unusual weapon choices less likely. It is definitely something that needs to be told to players in advance, and if that is not possible (the game has already started) then players should be able to change any feats or money spent on items if those items are going to get some serious gimpage.
[rant]No ruling by a DM is too terrible if the players have time to adjust to it or decide not to play. But rulings where DMs just pull stuff out of the rear and then screw up the player's character concepts, the only thing in the entire game world they actually have control over, that is just bad DMing. I don't really personally care if a DM wants to make impossible to use a reach weapon in anything other than large formations of NPCs. I just hate to see bad DMing, because it just makes it that much harder to get those players to try again later.[/rant]
Hi, Saern. It's always a pleasure to see your posts.
I agree that trying to extend "realism" arguments to magic, or the ramifications of 10th-level fighters (or rogues), is pretty silly.
So, then, does realism have no place in D&D?
If it has any place, it should apply to the normal, background "medieval" world, stripped of any fantasy elements. Which is where most of the conversation has been centered.
When the topic turns to magic (gloves of storing) or other fantastic elements, then "realism" arguments take a back seat, as they've done in this conversation.
My opinion on the sheathing issue is that the player had a right to expect the rules to remain valid even with Pole Arms.
I think a better DM response would have been something along the lines of "Thats outrageous! I'll let this fly for tonight but after that I'm house ruling this. You can trade your pole in for another melee weapon if you wish. You have until next week to make up your mind."
I feel the best option for the DM faced with a player using rules to do something unrealistic is to let it fly for the session but inform the plsayer that next session it will be house ruled. Work with the player if the player decides that character changes have to be made such as allowing the player to pick a new feat to replace short haft.
My opinion on the sheathing issue is that the player had a right to expect the rules to remain valid even with Pole Arms. I think a better DM response would have been something along the lines of "Thats outrageous! I'll let this fly for tonight but after that I'm house ruling this. You can trade your pole in for another melee weapon if you wish. You have until next week to make up your mind."
Agreed, that would have been much better.
Don't get me wrong, there are certainly advantages to reach weapons. But they are not so overpowered that they need to be gimped. Making it impossible to carry them and use a bow is just needless gimpage, which adds nothing to the fun of the game and just makes unusual weapon choices less likely. . . .
As I said before, disallowing a PC to stash a weapon twice his size on his back only unbalances the most fragile of games. And in my experience, few PCs regularly alternate between melee and ranged weapons, especially if they're able to move in on hard to reach opponents via flight.
[rant]No ruling by a DM is too terrible if the players have time to adjust to it or decide not to play. But rulings where DMs just pull stuff out of the rear . . .
I don't think using real-world references is "pulling something out of one's rear." Most reasonable people would agree that it's silly to think that someone could sheathe a pole weapon across his back without some sort of magical aid.
and then screw up the player's character concepts, the only thing in the entire game world they actually have control over, that is just bad DMing. I don't really personally care if a DM wants to make impossible to use a reach weapon in anything other than large formations of NPCs. I just hate to see bad DMing, because it just makes it that much harder to get those players to try again later.[/rant]
Allowing players to ignore common sense in order to game the system is bad DMing. What's next? They want to hold a sword by its blade so they can do bludgeoning damage?
I think my point about AOO's what you're addressing here, and yes, reach weapons do "do that." My point about more chances to dish out AOO's refers to the number of squares threatened: 8 for "normal" melee weapons vs 16 for reach weapons. Not to mention anyone who wants to close & attack the pole fighter from an adjacent square will have to leave one of those 16 threatened squares (unless they're taking a 5' step, of course).Except it doesn't cover any more angles than a regular weapon. And as you point out, only 8 opponents can get adjacent to you with regular weapons, which means that at most you are going to have 8 opponents moving in on you (assuming they were equally divided around you). Yes a reach weapon allows you the chance to get an AoO as they come in, the first time.
You're assuming that every opponent will go for the pole fighter. Those 8 extra squares can also be passed through by an opponent going for an ally. And in regard to your last sentence--yes, the first time, which is one more than those with shorter weapons get.
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.
A friend of mine owned a matched pair of antique battle axes made in Afghanistan: The weapons' hafts could be unscrewed to expose a butt spike. I suspect that the butt spikes were not intended for combat use: Butt spikes on wooden-hafted Middle-Eastern weapons were often intended to allow the weapon to be planted in the ground to prevent warping of the wood.
While the axes that I saw were not truly medieval weapons, weapons designed to come apart did exist in the period: In India, steel bows were manufactured. These weapons sometimes broke down into two pieces, one end socketing into the other and locking into place. While steel bows were uncommon (they were heavy, expensive, and prone to shattering in cold weather), they demonstrate that "breakdown" weapons existed.
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.
I tend to err on the side of generosity when it comes to applying penalties to players trying "awkward" things, just because I've had penalties applied to my characters when I thought such were inappropriate. One memorable frustration was a DM who declared that my PC couldn't use a greatsword in tight quarters, despite the fact that I have multiple books showing just how such weapons were historically used.
I assume that I don't know everything, so I let my players get away with things like carrying their 8 foot polearm "sheathed" diagonally behind them. Such a practice isn't nearly as unrealistic as some of the other things the game asks me to accept (Dire Flail, anyone?)
|
|
Allowing players to ignore common sense in order to game the system is bad DMing. What's next? They want to hold a sword by its blade so they can do bludgeoning damage?
uuuuuh...seen it done...
also "half swording," where you hold the blade to better punch through platemail with the point of the sword.
For those who have suggested it: I don't think ruling that a reach weapon can't be sheathed means you have "gimped" the reach weapon. I think it is a logical ruling. They are still really useful weapons under most circumstances--they merely have some believable limitations.
I'm currently DMing a Rise of the Runelords campaign, and we have a fighter PC who uses a reach weapon (longspear). So far he hasn't had any complaints--although there have been a couple of times when he had to drop the weapon and draw a longsword.
On at least one occasion it was the player himself who realized the situational limitation of his preferred weapon and made the decision to switch weapons. Those isolated incidents have in no way deterred this character from continuing to use his longspear...or to select feats with the longspear in mind.
One can point at a lot of things in D&D and say that "if *this* is in D&D, and this thing could never really exist, then you should allow me to do what I want because this isn't real life." But I personally don't find that approach to be very satisfying. (And seemingly, neither do my players). Therefore, I try to make reasonable rulings, I try to make fair rulings, and I try to err on fun over slavish adherence to either the letter of the rules or to realism. But I try to strike a healthy balance somewhere in the middle. For me, that means no using reach weapons in cramped quarters, and--if it came up--no "sheathing" of reach weapons on one's back without the use of some magical assistance.
I do think it is hard to deny that it would be awkward at best to try to "sheath" an 8 or 10 foot weapon on one's back.
The good thing is, my players are all (with the exception of my wife) like me: they've been playing D&D since First Edition (at least). We tend to have similar opinions on such things.
I don't think that makes anyone else wrong if they prefer a bit less realism when it comes to stowing long weapons, but it does reflect a difference in our play styles and personal preference. And the wonderful thing about this great game is that there's room for all of us.
Hi, pres man.It's been my experience, and the experience of players in my campaigns, that the extra 5' of reach, whether from a pole-arm or from playing aLarge PC, are oftentimes worth it.
You're right: it's not a solution to all melee problems. But an extra 5' of reach provides opportunities for a lot of maneuvers --striking foes who are engaged with intervening tank allies, tripping foes with a ranseur, or charging foes and getting in the first swing.
Using a reach weapon is a trade-off against the better damage of the great sword and great axe, but it makes Combat Reflexes more valuble, and is probably worth the feat that non-monks should take, to chocke in on the haft and use the weapon against adjacent foes.
I get this as well. A little extra damage is nice but reach lets you do things...things that get you called a munchkin.
Out of curiosity, for those willing to houserule polearms as unsheathable for "realism" issues, what do you do with double swords, dwarven urgoshes, gnomish picks, orc double axes, dire flails, spiked chains, and all the other silly weapons?
Are they sheathable? Usable in tight corridors? Some other random limitation not covered by the rules?
Rather than submitting a blanket statement like "don't let those crybaby munchkins get away with it!" or "realism has no place in D&D!", I'd suggest that the correct approach depends on your campaign. If you and your players accept the artwork as accurately depicting the game world, then physics don't work at all -- people can wield 10-ft.-long swords, and use "earth breakers" with heads large enough they should be called "earth quakers," because if you dropped the thing it would register a 9.6 on the Richter scale. If that's your style, then sheathing polearms is a piece of cake -- in fact, you can probably just stick one in your back pocket.
On the other hand, if you use 10d6 for 40 ft. falling damage (1d6+2d6+3d6+4d6), then you probably shouldn't allow sheathing a polearm.
This deserves caps, because it tends to be forgotten: IT DEPENDS ON YOUR GROUP. THERE IS NOT ONE TRUE, PURE, NOBLE, AND CORRECT WAY TO PLAY THE GAME. The "best" way to play depends on the tastes of the people playing.
|
|
Rather than submitting a blanket statement like "don't let those crybaby munchkins get away with it!" or "realism has no place in D&D!", I'd suggest that the correct approach depends on your campaign. If you and your players accept the artwork as accurately depicting the game world, then physics don't work at all -- people can wield 10-ft.-long swords, and use "earth breakers" with heads large enough they should be called "earth quakers," because if you dropped the thing it would register a 9.6 on the Richter scale. If that's your style, then sheathing polearms is a piece of cake -- in fact, you can probably just stick one in your back pocket.
On the other hand, if you use 10d6 for 40 ft. falling damage (1d6+2d6+3d6+4d6), then you probably shouldn't allow sheathing a polearm.
This deserves caps, because it tends to be forgotten: IT DEPENDS ON YOUR GROUP. THERE IS NOT ONE TRUE, PURE, NOBLE, AND CORRECT WAY TO PLAY THE GAME. The "best" way to play depends on the tastes of the people playing.
I had given up on reading this thread until you posted Kirth.
You are absolutely correct. There is no ONE TRUE WAY OF GAMING.By the way, I intend to implement your factorial increase in falling damage immediately!
I had given up on reading this thread until you posted Kirth.
You are absolutely correct. There is no ONE TRUE WAY OF GAMING.By the way, I intend to implement your factorial increase in falling damage immediately!
Of course there is one true way of gaming! My way! :P!
By the way, I intend to implement your factorial increase in falling damage immediately!
[math]Factorials multiply. This is just a Gaussian sum.[/math]
That is all.
Was this a standard rule in an earlier edition? Some of the guys I play with (who've been playing longer than I have) use this rule, but I'm not sure where it came from.
I seem to recall that Gygax mentioned in Dragon that he'd originally intended it that way, but the rules were edited and published without the clarification, reading "1d6 per 10 feet" without his added "cumulative". Or I might be misremembering. Anyway, it was in Dragon back around the time that Def Leppard was recording their first album -- too far back for me to remember clearly, but the rule stuck with us.
|
|
...
On the other hand, if you use 10d6 for 40 ft. falling damage (1d6+2d6+3d6+4d6), then you probably shouldn't allow sheathing a polearm.
...
Oh I like this one! I'd think that 210d6 falling damage as opposed to the 20d6 cap as current would likely keep those high HP characters from just jumping off the cliff instead of taking their time getting down.
I shall have to run this by my players!
I don't think using real-world references is "pulling something out of one's rear." Most reasonable people would agree that it's silly to think that someone could sheathe a pole weapon across his back without some sort of magical aid.
So I assume then that you also force anyone using a bow to unstring it when not in use as well? I mean if we are going to enforce "reasonable" rulings then let's do it and not just pick and choose which "reasonable" rulings we want to include. If instead we are picking and choosing which "realistic" rulings we want to use (can't sheath a reach weapon, but you can leave your bow string how ever long you want and it will work fine, oh and don't worry about all of those other weird weapons unless they are reach weapons), then yes, things are getting pulled out of rears.
Nothing wrong with that, different strokes and all that. I just personally believe that players deserve to be told ahead of time or allowed to change their characters if that is not possible. You want to weaken polearms, you think they are strong enough that this won't hurt them too bad, great, good for you. Just tell your players and if they built a character around a polearm, allow them to rebuild the character if they so wish. If they decide to go on with it at that point, that is certainly their choices. This decision isn't game breaking, it just makes reach weapons less attractive is all.
Was this a standard rule in an earlier edition? Some of the guys I play with (who've been playing longer than I have) use this rule, but I'm not sure where it came from.I seem to recall that Gygax mentioned in Dragon that he'd originally intended it that way, but the rules were edited and published without the clarification, reading "1d6 per 10 feet" without his added "cumulative". Or I might be misremembering. Anyway, it was in Dragon back around the time that Def Leppard was recording their first album -- too far back for me to remember clearly, but the rule stuck with us.
I'm looking at the AD&D Players Handbook, p. 105, and it limits falling damage to 20d6.
As far as the original poster's question, I think that both sides have merit. It's legitimate to say that in real life it would be difficult to sheathe a polearm. It would also be legitimate in a fantasy game to say, "We don't want to bother with such mundane considerations."
Remember that it's a game, and it's supposed to be fun for everyone. :-)
Was this a standard rule in an earlier edition? Some of the guys I play with (who've been playing longer than I have) use this rule, but I'm not sure where it came from.
On the other hand, if you use 10d6 for 40 ft. falling damage (1d6+2d6+3d6+4d6),
Was once a Dragon article, 1E I'm pretty sure. Caused a huge curfufle for at least half a year with people arguing back and fourth (in the letters section) about whether or not it was more true to real world physics to use the traditional 1d6 per 10' fallen or some kind of increasing damage system.
My recollection is that once there was some kind of physics based real world explanation for the original 1d6 per 10' fallen system most people simply stuck with that. It would seem we have an old heathen in our midsts. I suggest a public burning would be rather cathartic for everyone - well except maybe Mothman.
Was this a standard rule in an earlier edition? Some of the guys I play with (who've been playing longer than I have) use this rule, but I'm not sure where it came from.I seem to recall that Gygax mentioned in Dragon that he'd originally intended it that way, but the rules were edited and published without the clarification, reading "1d6 per 10 feet" without his added "cumulative". Or I might be misremembering. Anyway, it was in Dragon back around the time that Def Leppard was recording their first album -- too far back for me to remember clearly, but the rule stuck with us.
I'm sceptical that THE MAN himself ever actually endorsed the model though he may have mentioned it in passing. If he had, you know, gone on the record as saying its better, I think a lot more of us would have used it.
|
|
By the way, I intend to implement your factorial increase in falling damage immediately![math]Factorials multiply. This is just a Gaussian sum.[/math]
That is all.
I was waiting for that. I put factorial in haste without considering exactly what it meant. Thanks:
I intend to enact Kirth's gaussian sum falling damage immediately!
My recollection is that once there was some kind of physics based real world explanation for the original 1d6 per 10' fallen system most people simply stuck with that.
The real world physics explanation is that the energy of a fall is linearly proportional to the length of the fall. That is, a 20' drop has twice as much energy as a 10' drop, and a 30' drop has three times the energy. So if 10' worth of falling is always worth 1d6 damage, then the linear model makes sense. Of course, just because the energy doubles doesn't mean that the potential for injury doesn't more than double, so the summation model also makes sense.
It really just depends on how lethal you want your falling (and dropping objects on people) to be.
I was waiting for that.
I live to serve.