Frankly, I think that the standard reach weapon should be able to be used either at reach or within 5'. However, the wielder has to choose which each round and must use a move action to swap. There could be feats added to allow swift action change (once per round) and even allow the weapon to be used as a double weapon when up close.
If the Lunge feat makes it into the final rules (10' reach with 1-handed weapons in exchange for -2 to atks), then a "reverse lunge" feat for attacking adjacent targets with any reach weapon would make a VERY nice symmetry... on the other hand, if reach weapons suddenly get to attack adjacent targets at -2 with no feat, then the Lunge option should be stripped of its "feathood" as well and made into a general rule.
In proposing all these new rules, it's easy to lose track of where symmetrical ones already exist...
Ehh, at 5' under current suggestion a reach weapon is a club. Reverse lunge/short haft might make the head usable at -2, and that could be good symmetry.
My simulation point is that it is impossible to learn how to use a polearm without learning how to hit someone with a pole. Parralell mechanic arguements aside, the fact is that right now, the rules for hitting someone with a pole have a pretty clear split from the rules for hitting someone with a knife on a pole, and that is a problem.
Honestly, in my mind what we are discussing is essentially an odd branch of two weapon fighting, where one end of the weapon cannot engage the opponent. The mechanics exist for stick as weapon, and coopting one-hand quarterstaff rules where you are not using the offhand seems reasonable to me.
The question at this point is what happens to Short Haft or whatever alternate feat or feats will exist to improve the 5' strike. Will it be a feat to allow you to treat your 5' when using a polearm exactly like you had a quarterstaff? Or will it just be more like the existing Short Haft, and allow you to, with a swift action, bring the head to 5'. Both I feel could be valid options.
|
I dislike the spiked chain for its flavour. I absolutely think it should be possible to threaten adjacent squares as well as those requiring reach, though. Also, while an option to use the reach weapon as a staff or club might be OK, it seems to me that weapons other than the Spiked Chain (or that Varisian scarf) could exist that have the same property of being designed to work at both ranges.
I also like the new Lunge feat (I now just want an AoO feat, like the SRD Stand Still, to stack with it).
In all honesty, every time I look at Short Haft, I think to myself "That's kinda a neat feat, but I'd be better off with EWP: Spiked Chain for my slot."
Perhaps the Spiked Chain is too good, but I don't really think so. Feats should give you something worth taking, and every other EWP I've ever looked at (with the exclusion of the DMG's Kusari-Gama) has not been worth nearly enough. Typically one is better off just sticking with a martial weapon than bothering with an EWP, unless it's the Spiked Chain. I want my feat expenditures to be on something worthwhile, not just to make me marginally (typically a whopping +1 average damage, if that) better.
|
I'd rather see a feat similar to Short Haft from PHB2 added to Pathfinder, instead of just allowing reach weapons to attack adjacent at a -2.
The best part of the Short Haft feat (from this DM's POV) is that using it to attack an adjacent square costs a swift action, this means that the user can't switch between adjacent and reach targets at their whim multiple times within a single round.
-Skeld
I think someone suggested it as 'Half Haft' on the 'Skills and Feats' playtest forum. I agree -- it would make polearms feel a lot better.
|
...would be happy with a simple blurb in the reach weapon description, that all reach weapons can be used as a club at 5' at a -2 penalty, doing 1d6 (1d4 small) bludgeoning with 1x strength modifier. If I have weapon focus (reach weapon), and can then grab another feat to turn that into no penalty and 1.5 strength is probably okay. Then, every feat I take with my longspear, lance or whatever will apply both to the 10' strike and the 5' strike, and I think, mechanically, this is much cleaner. Razor Sharp Chair Leg could still be used to beef this up...Totally agreed. Exactly in the spirit in which I posted my original comment.And this is exactly what I am currently considering. It should be noted, that I think that the spiked chain is fine as an exotic weapon. I have considered nerfing it a bit many times, but the feat cost to use the weapon effectively has kept me from doing so... Unless I hear some sort of outcry, this is probably the way I am going to go.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I want to put my support for the idea of the reach weapons having capability of attacking close-quartered. Ruling it as an "improvised weapon" is an easy and understood mechanic to apply to it.
As for the spiked chain - it's too good - even as an exotic weapon. Compare it to the other exotic weapons that all require a feat......
But thats for another thread.
Robert
|
In all honesty, every time I look at Short Haft, I think to myself "That's kinda a neat feat, but I'd be better off with EWP: Spiked Chain for my slot."
Perhaps the Spiked Chain is too good, but I don't really think so. Feats should give you something worth taking, and every other EWP I've ever looked at (with the exclusion of the DMG's Kusari-Gama) has not been worth nearly enough. Typically one is better off just sticking with a martial weapon than bothering with an EWP, unless it's the Spiked Chain. I want my feat expenditures to be on something worthwhile, not just to make me marginally (typically a whopping +1 average damage, if that) better.
I agree. rather than nerfing the Spiked Chain I would prefer beefing up the other exotic weapons.
I mean really, too few people are even going to consider an Exotic Weapon if they are all as wimpy as the others. I think the others are ok, but for a feat I want a weapon that KICKS ASS and doesn't bother to take names!
Otherwise, just get rid of the exotic weapon category all together.
|
|
I agree. rather than nerfing the Spiked Chain I would prefer beefing up the other exotic weapons.
And that's the other side of the coin.
Anyone who paid an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to be able to use a whip or siangham needs to be mocked mercilessly until they run out of the room in tears, swearing their undying revenge.
Most of the polearms that function as martial weapons are as good as or better than stuff like the kama, and a *simple* weapon, the quarterstaff, manages to capture the double weapon 'goodness' of all of those totally freakish racial weapons like the gnomish hooked hammer, orcish double axe, dwarven urgrosh, elven double-katana-that-shoots-bears-that-are-on-fire or halfling two-headed wifflebat.
The spiked chain is the *only* exotic weapon I'd spend a feat on, barring some non-OGL stuff like the Talenta boomerang, from Eberron.
I'd be willing to take a character who made use of a bola (a Shoanti Fighter / Bard who uses a bola as a bull-roarer? Funky.), or even a whip (as a disarm / trip specialist or something), but I'd never pay a feat for the 'priviledge' of being *less* effective than someone with a longbow or ranseur.
|
|
I agree. rather than nerfing the Spiked Chain I would prefer beefing up the other exotic weapons.And that's the other side of the coin.
Anyone who paid an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to be able to use a whip or siangham needs to be mocked mercilessly until they run out of the room in tears, swearing their undying revenge.
Most of the polearms that function as martial weapons are as good as or better than stuff like the kama, and a *simple* weapon, the quarterstaff, manages to capture the double weapon 'goodness' of all of those totally freakish racial weapons like the gnomish hooked hammer, orcish double axe, dwarven urgrosh, elven double-katana-that-shoots-bears-that-are-on-fire or halfling two-headed wifflebat.
The spiked chain is the *only* exotic weapon I'd spend a feat on, barring some non-OGL stuff like the Talenta boomerang, from Eberron.
I'd be willing to take a character who made use of a bola (a Shoanti Fighter / Bard who uses a bola as a bull-roarer? Funky.), or even a whip (as a disarm / trip specialist or something), but I'd never pay a feat for the 'priviledge' of being *less* effective than someone with a longbow or ranseur.
Just looked up the stats on that Two-Headed Wifflebat... awesome!
2d6/2d6 18-20/x2, double weapon, has bite attack, can be thrown and returns (it is a bat afterall), +4 to disarm as it bites the opponents weapon, +4 to grappling- again the biting thing, reroll missed attacks that Wiff over enemy heads, and can be used in sports. As a side effect it poops guano suitable for firearms without an alchemy check.
As for the spiked chain - it's too good - even as an exotic weapon. Compare it to the other exotic weapons that all require a feat......
But thats for another thread.
Robert
Or, rather, perhaps the other exotic weapons just aren't really worth spending a feat on in the first place. I don't think I'd ever see anyone wield a dwarven waraxe unless they were a dwarf who treated it as a martial weapon. I know I wouldn't spend a feat on an average of +1 damage, especially since there are ways to get more damage than that from just one feat.
The spiked chain opens up lots of interesting tactical options for a character, but it costs them a feat. This is a fair trade off, as it's not like it is the be-all and end-all of weapons - I've seen plenty of characters who don't touch it, because they have better things to spend their feats on. I don't really think it's broken, so much as it's worth what you spend.
|
|
The spiked chain opens up lots of interesting tactical options for a character, but it costs them a feat. This is a fair trade off, as it's not like it is the be-all and end-all of weapons - I've seen plenty of characters who don't touch it, because they have better things to spend their feats on. I don't really think it's broken, so much as it's worth what you spend.
I respectfully disagree. I think it is too powerful even after spending that feat.
That being said, not only it it too powerful, the others are not good enough to warrant a feat.
They all need tweaked to meet somewhere in the middle - something I touched on in the other spiked chain feat.
Here's the thing: there are two threads with 60 posts about the spiked chain - both with a third of the posts indicating it's too powerful.
There's not a single post stating that the LongSword is too powerful, or the Hvy Flail is too powerful.
It occurs to me that if that many people seem to share that opinion (and this only counts those who took the time to read and post), then there's got to be legitimacy to the claim.
None of the other equipment items has nowhere near this sort of outcry.
That being said, I intend to start a new thread to find ways to improve the other "exotic weapons" Regardless the spiked chain needs to be adjusted slightly downwards in addition to many of the others upwards.
Robert
|
|
The spiked chain opens up lots of "interesting" tactical options for a character...As for the spiked chain - it's too good - even as an exotic weapon. Compare it to the other exotic weapons that all require a feat......
But thats for another thread.
Robert
Yep. that "trip, attack, AoO, trip, attack, AoO, rinse, repeat" routine never gets old...
Agreed.I like the feat option myself, similar to Short Haft from PHB II. I think this offers the most in terms of choice without adjusting the rules for reach weapons.
If you go for reach weapons you can:
A) Wield a reach weapon by itself and threaten at range only. This is already a free alternative to standard weapons. Attacking adjacent is not an option.
B) Wield a reach weapon and wear spiked gauntlets to attack adjacent foes. A drawback is not being able to where other sorts of magical gloves such as gloves of dexterity.
C) Wield a reach weapon by itself and choose the short haft feat.It's simple, tactical, and provides choice. Coming up with rules for fighting with the haft of a reach weapon might be nice, but I think it needlessly clutters the core rules, and is better served being a house rule option.
Slight error here.
To be able to threaten with spiked gaunts or armor spikes, they must be readied as weapons. If y9u are wielding a polearm or spiked chain, that means you are wielding two weapons, and you fall under the TWF rules...auto -2 to hit on all attacks. There's also quite a shift in dmg possibilities between TH weapons and single hand weapon attacks.
Spiked gaunts and armor spikes give you built in, always drawn weapons...but those weapons still have to be readied, or you don't threaten your area with them. The only exception to this rule is Natural Weaponry, considered always readied, and by extension, Improved Unarmed Strike...which again brings you into feat cost usage to do what you can do with a chain weapon.
===Aelryinth
Reach weapons fill a niche that non-reach weapons can't, they attack through adjacent squares into non-adjacent squares (this is especially useful when you can't get to a square that is adjacent to your target). If reach weapons fill the niche of both reach and non-reach weapons, non-reach weapons become effectively useless.
That's the point I'm trying to make. I think this would be a bad change.
A reach weapon, normally 12' or more in length, is definitely too cumbersome to be used as a double weapon staff-style. Doing so would mean other people (typically one's allies) are in danger of being whacked by the business end while the wielder tries to half-staff and strike with the bvtt.
Half-staffing a reach weapon to use the business end in close means the bvtt of the staff is wagging around behind the wielder, knocking into things to spoil wielder's intents. Also, potentially tripping up people to the rear (again, typically one's allies).
Once an opponent is inside the reach, the wielder can try to slap with the shaft (short of the head), but it is a simple task for the opponent to block and even seize the weapon. The true reach weapon is only effective in formation fighting to force engagement at reach.
No feat can make all that length of shaft disappear, or enable one's friends to dodge the wild ends of a twelve foot weapon swung half-staff. A feat might enable the (historically and physically improbable) half-staff use, at steep penalty, provided all adjacent and rear tiles are empty.
A pole arm in the 6-8 foot length range is another matter entirely. It's users are normally trained for half-staffing, but it can't threaten at reach. You don't get one with the other.
|
|
This thread is suffering from entirely too much "realism." Maybe I'm being hard-headed, but I don't want my RPG to simulate the "reality" of medieval weapons. I rather like the fantastical aspect of the iconic "full plate wearing, sword & shield wielding warrior." It may not be the most effective combat style, and it might not even be how people 5 or 6 hundred years ago fought, but it is familiar from a fantasy fiction standpoint and it jives with the classic D&D image of the "hero."
To be clear, I don't have a problem with reach weapons, or even reach weapons attacking into adjacent squares. What I have the issue with is allowing it at no cost. A -2 or -4 penalty isn't much a penalty by level 10, when the Fighter has something like a +20* attack bonus. Limiting damage to 1d6 isn't trivial as well, since it will change weapon damage (say, for a halberd) from 1d10+20** to 1d6+20* (the damage die isn't the driver in damage, the bonus is). Against a great many of the opponents he's likely to encounter, these penalties will be meaningless.
I like the idea of paying a feat to be able to attack adjacent because feats are something a Fighter (and other characters to a greater extent) have a limited quantity of. Even something similar to Short Haft makes sense - the entry requirements are low (proficiency, weapon focus, BAB+3), but the feat is self-limiting by only allowing the character to use it once/round and impacting the Fighter's economy of actions.
-Skeld
* - +20 = +10 [BAB] +7 [Str Mod] +2 [weapon enhancement] + 1 [weapon focus]
** - +20 = +14 [2*Str] + 2 [weapon enhancement] + 4 [weapon specialization], and this is before using power attack to double sacrificed BAB for damage.
|
|
This thread is suffering from entirely too much "realism."
Those posts are just the ying to your yang.
Maybe I'm being hard-headed, but I don't want my RPG to simulate the "reality" of medieval weapons.
That was tried in 1st edition. Large weapons tables. Each weapon was more or less effective versus different armor types, weapons had speeds and minimum usage space requirements etc. As an overall system it was a little unwieldly, but the weapon speed part, if simplified (say by having each weapon have its own modifier to initiative), would be a cool way to add another dimension to weapons and weapon tactics. Your short sword versus my great ax? No contest! You have the speedier weapon sir. Please feel free to strike first!
Just for the record, *I* have not been pushing the realism angle. :)
I rather like the fantastical aspect of the iconic "full plate wearing, sword & shield wielding warrior." It may not be the most effective combat style, and it might not even be how people 5 or 6 hundred years ago fought, but it is familiar from a fantasy fiction standpoint and it jives with the classic D&D image of the "hero."
It has been my experience that *most* players design their characters to fit a stylistic or thematic vision and not to min-max DOT and the like. If this has not been your experience, you have my sympathies. Besides everyone has their own image of what a "hero" is. Why trample theirs? I am still not convinced that everyone would start carrying the "new" reach weapons.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with reach weapons, or even reach weapons attacking into adjacent squares. What I have the issue with is allowing it at no cost. A -2 or -4 penalty isn't much a penalty by level 10, when the Fighter has something like a +20* attack bonus. Limiting damage to 1d6 isn't trivial as well, since it will change weapon damage (say, for a halberd) from 1d10+20** to 1d6+20* (the damage die isn't the driver in damage, the bonus is). Against a great many of the opponents he's likely to encounter, these penalties will be meaningless.
IMHO this is a weak argument. It is well known that things in the d20 system don't scale well. Using a *high* level example does not make for a convincing counterpoint.
I like the idea of paying a feat to be able to attack adjacent because feats are something a Fighter (and other characters to a greater extent) have a limited quantity of. Even something similar to Short Haft makes sense - the entry requirements are low (proficiency, weapon focus, BAB+3), but the feat is self-limiting by only allowing the character to use it once/round and impacting the Fighter's economy of actions.
The issue I have here is the continued belief that fighters still need to spend feats to gain access to the powers of their class. (Another thread post says this so more eloquently than I but here goes...) While the wizard uses 1 standard action (95% of the time) to accomplish it's classes powers, the fighter needs to forgo his movement and use full attack to use his, and you want to penalize him more by adding swift action restrictions and the like? We will never approach parity between fighters and wizards if this continues to be the prevailing view.
Anyhow. Just my two coppers.
Cheers
To be clear, I don't have a problem with reach weapons, or even reach weapons attacking into adjacent squares. What I have the issue with is allowing it at no cost. A -2 or -4 penalty isn't much a penalty by level 10, when the Fighter has something like a +20* attack bonus. Limiting damage to 1d6 isn't trivial as well, since it will change weapon damage (say, for a glaive) from 1d10+16** to 1d6+13 (the damage die isn't the driver in damage, the bonus is).
<snip>** - +16 = +10 [1.5*Str] + 2 [weapon enhancement] + 4 [weapon specialization], and this is before using power attack to double sacrificed Strength bonus to attack for damage.
I fixed it for you. And, that 1d6 doesn't get the power attack double dip. Frankly, I'm okay with this. I ran the numbers, and that seems about right for me. The fact of the matter is, reach weapons are probably 8'-10', or there would be more penalties for their use. We would be talking about something very different in that case.
As the original poster said, there are existing rules for attacking with an improvised weapon. Considering reach polearm hafts as something similar but separate is fun, and makes the weapons more fun. Whether actual ranseurs, pikes, glaives, etc. historically were used in this fashion is moot, because I feel it works mechanically, within existing rules in the game.
|
|
...
I do keep goofing up the PA changes with the Beta rules.
That was tried in 1st edition. Large weapons tables. Each weapon was more or less effective versus different armor types, weapons had speeds and minimum usage space requirements etc. As an overall system it was a little unwieldly, but the weapon speed part, if simplified (say by having each weapon have its own modifier to initiative), would be a cool way to add another dimension to weapons and weapon tactics. Your short sword versus my great ax? No contest! You have the speedier weapon sir. Please feel free to strike first!
Just for the record, *I* have not been pushing the realism angle. :)
I wasn't trying to single you out for my comments, or address anyone else in particular. I was trying to address the general trend of "that's not how a [insert weapon name] works in the real world!" posts. There's a number of them in the Equipment playtest forum. I'm certainly not trying to "trample" anyone else's idea for what they want a character to be. I played 1e and the weapons tables were rubbish.
I'm not in favor of this idea. On the other hand, if makes in the final version, it doesn't hurt my feelings either. That said, there's probably no further fruitful debate left to have here.
Good discussion all around though.
-Skeld
|
|
I appreciate the discussion that has been generated by this thread, and while I would like to specifically comment on a number of the posts, I think it be better if I restated my intent. I feel that my original posting was not clear. This is obviously my fault. I am not advocating a massive rewrite of the weapon and reach rules, as it would at first seem. I am actually just looking to add a little flavour to the weapons selected and used by fighter types, and to a lesser degree, adding a little versatility to the fighter class (Skeld: You ask what problem does this fix? While you are correct, no threads have been clamouring for fixes to the reach weapons, a quick search finds a number of threads bemoaning the imbalance between fighter types and spell casters). My main contention is that the spiked chain already exists. Unless it is removed from the game or reworked, the in game mechanic for a reach weapon that that can also be used to strike/threaten adjacent foes exists. Other than costing a character a single exotic weapon feat, it requires no other expenditure on the part of the wielder to accomplish what a number of you resist allowing any of the other reach weapons from doing. The spiked chain doesn’t incur a penalty to hit or damage to compensate for its versatility. It does the same type and amount of damage (2d4) whether used at reach or at close range. It doesn’t require a swift action to switch targets. It allows trip attacks and can be dropped to avoid being tripped yourself. It adds +2 CMB to disarm attempts. It allows you to use weapon finesse with it. Wow. If I had started a thread that had advocated the addition of an exotic weapon called “Light Glaive” or “Half Halberd” that had identical stats to the spiked chain, I imagine the response to my suggestion would have been overwhelmingly against. Why? Because my weapon would be too powerful? Because a blade on a pole can be used to strike at reach and adjacent foes is somehow less believable that a spiked chain doing the very...
This is a great thread, but that was some hard yards - embrace paragraphs hombre, paragraphs are the reader's friend...
I like the idea that there is a penalty for close combat, but you can do it. Plus; You can eliminate those penalties with a feat.
A -2 or -4 penalty isn't much a penalty by level 10, when the Fighter has something like a +20* attack bonus. Limiting damage to 1d6 isn't trivial as well, since it will change weapon damage (say, for a glaive) from 1d10+16** to 1d6+7*** (the damage die isn't the driver in damage, the bonus is).
<snip>** - +16 = +10 [1.5*Str] + 2 [weapon enhancement] + 4 [weapon specialization], and this is before using power attack to double sacrificed Strength bonus to attack for damage.
*** - +7 = +7 [no 1.5*Str, it is effectively the off-hand strike of the polearm used as a double weapon] + 0 [the haft isn't the part of the weapon enhanced, unless you paid for the double/triple enhancement] + 0 [weapon specialization only covers the business end, unless you want to specialize in haft-swatting]
Spoiler:*** Double enhancement usually only covers the head and bvtt. If you want the haft also enhanced, that would be triple enhancement. Or you could have only the head and haft enhanced... As a trade-off, the magical polearm isn't ruined by breaking the non-enhanced haft. You attach the head to a new pole and you're back in business. An enhanced haft would be ruined if broken, but not the separately enhanced head.
I fixed it for you. And, that 1d6 doesn't get the power attack double dip. Frankly, I'm okay with this. I ran the numbers, and that seems about right for me. The fact of the matter is, reach weapons are probably 8'-10', or there would be more penalties for their use. We would be talking about something very different in that case.
As the original poster said, there are existing rules for attacking with an improvised weapon. Considering reach polearm hafts as something similar but separate is fun, and makes the weapons more fun. Whether actual ranseurs, pikes, glaives, etc. historically were used in this fashion is moot, because I feel it works mechanically, within existing rules in the game.
I fixed the fix for you.
As for reach weapons being only 8'-10', there could be a category of non-threatening reach by which these shorter polearms can attack but can't threaten the "reach" tiles. But then we aren't talking about true reach weapons that can't attack adjacent tiles at all.
** - +16 = +10 [1.5*Str] + 2 [weapon enhancement] + 4 [weapon specialization], and this is before using power attack to double sacrificed Strength bonus to attack for damage.
*** - +7 = +7 [no 1.5*Str, it is effectively the off-hand strike of the polearm used as a double weapon] + 0 [the haft isn't the part of the weapon enhanced, unless you paid for the double/triple enhancement] + 0 [weapon specialization only covers the business end, unless you want to specialize in haft-swatting]
I would carry over proficiency and specialization, because I think this fits into normal training and specialization in these weapons. I'm conflicted about enchantments effecting the haft, but using double weapon rules makes sense, although honestly I don't have a horse in the race either way. Half Haft is still a good feat, since it lets the character 1.5 Strength at 5' with a 1d10/x3 with weapon enchantments/adamantine, versus just Str + 1d6/x2 without weapon enchantments/adamantine.
|
|
10' would go from the middle of your square (if you're a medium creature) to the middle of the reach square. From the edge of your square to the middle of the reach square would be 7.5'. So, I don't have a problem with the size mentioned and I can see them having some use in the adjacent squares, too.
Anyhow, mechanically, we do need for fighters to threaten more squares. I'd like them to be able to do it without using a Spiked Chain (or that Varisian scarf from RotRL player's guide, which might be even sillier).
Anyhow, mechanically, we do need for fighters to threaten more squares. I'd like them to be able to do it without using a Spiked Chain (or that Varisian scarf from RotRL player's guide, which might be even sillier).
Likewise, but I'd go a step further: they need virtual reach, even with a longsword. If you try to step past a competent, experienced fighter within 10 feet or so, even if he's already acted that "round," he should be able to take a step and attack you. In short, an attack of opportunity should include a 5-ft. step if the person using it has, say, BAB 6+. And I'd go so far as to make it a 10-ft. step at BAB 11+. And maybe even a 15-ft. step at BAB 16+. Then melee guys could go back to being a real threat on the battlefield at high levels, too, not just at low levels.
Detailing that using a reach weapon in adjacent squares changes the weapon to a club and you get a -2 penalty is a little much as far as penalties go, and complexity. Just give a flat -4 penalty to attack rolls and be done. It's simple, sufficient, and mechanically fair.
Alternatively, we can just add Short Haft into core and be done.
|
|
This is a great thread, but that was some hard yards - embrace paragraphs hombre, paragraphs are the reader's friend...
Yeah. What can I say? I should have edited the post after I submitted it. It was 3:00 in the morning and I was half asleep and obviously suffering verbal diarrhea. I apologize for any eye strain I may have caused and promise to do better in the future.
Cheers to all.
|
|
Likewise, but I'd go a step further: they need virtual reach, even with a longsword. If you try to step past a competent, experienced fighter within 10 feet or so, even if he's already acted that "round," he should be able to take a step and attack you. In short, an attack of opportunity should include a 5-ft. step if the person using it has, say, BAB 6+. And I'd go so far as to make it a 10-ft. step at BAB 11+. And maybe even a 15-ft. step at BAB 16+. Then melee guys could go back to being a real threat on the battlefield at high levels, too, not just at low levels.
This is an interesting idea. Especially for the reason you give. Do you intend to make this a fighter class feature or accessible to other classes via a feat? (ie. Lunge, a modified version of Lunge or a new feat altogether.)
(I can't help but find it a little humorous that we began with an idea to give reach weapons the ability to attack adjacent foes, and now that idea has morphed into giving all melee weapons reach qualities as well.)
This is an interesting idea. Especially for the reason you give. Do you intend to make this a fighter class feature or accessible to other classes via a feat? (ie. Lunge, a modified version of Lunge or a new feat altogether.)
Thanks! I'd probably just make it a new feat that would supercede Lunge, but I'm open to suggestions.
** - +16 = +10 [1.5*Str] + 2 [weapon enhancement] + 4 [weapon specialization], and this is before using power attack to double sacrificed Strength bonus to attack for damage.
*** - +7 = +7 [no 1.5*Str, it is effectively the off-hand strike of the polearm used as a double weapon] + 0 [the haft isn't the part of the weapon enhanced, unless you paid for the double/triple enhancement] + 0 [weapon specialization only covers the business end, unless you want to specialize in haft-swatting]
I would carry over proficiency and specialization, because I think this fits into normal training and specialization in these weapons. I'm conflicted about enchantments effecting the haft, but using double weapon rules makes sense, although honestly I don't have a horse in the race either way. Half Haft is still a good feat, since it lets the character 1.5 Strength at 5' with a 1d10/x3 with weapon enchantments/adamantine, versus just Str + 1d6/x2 without weapon enchantments/adamantine.
If you want that, with a true ~12' reach weapon, then you'd still have a big penalty (-4, no specialization bonus unless you specialize in half haft) for trying to do anything with 5-6 feet of staff swinging behind you, bonking into things and disrupting your intended aim, etc. Double the penalty for attempting w/o half haft feat (still no specialization bonus), natural 1 automatically fumbles, etc.
Thing is, I've seen some sojutsu done with a massive pike, or omi no yari, at ~12', and those aren't realistically weapons that can wielded in a 360-degree arc in a 6 second round. If we are talking about, as a base mechanic, the ability to attack any of the 12 squares at 10' reach, which is what reach weapons can do as a base capacity, we cannot realistically be talking about the true historic ~12' pike.
Check out this video. Is this the length you are describing for reach weapons? That's about 8-9', by my estimate. It's absolutely able to strike 12 squares, maybe the full 20 if you allow haft strikes.
IF you are instead describing all reach weapons as shown in this video, then that explains our difference of opinion. I think these are Monkeygripped Huge Polearms, and not the normal, listed, Large polearms on the list.
I think a polearm/reach weapon in close combat should not do it's full str bonus on damage without using some sort of action changing the grip, a swift action to change grip and -2 to hit 1d6 damage as a club + str seems fine though.
I feel it would be wrong to maintain your reach and deal 1.5 str with attacks of oppurtunity and still deal full str damage in close combat, the penalties should somehow be similar to 2-weapon fighting, even discounting the awkwardness to wield it.
btw I DO think the spiked chain is a sick puppy that needs to be put down..
Also, unlike most other people I dont think an exotic weapon feat for + 1 damage is necesarily 'BAD', since specialization is + 2 and a fighter exclusive ability I dont think any class should equal that ability by taking an exotic weapon, unless you want to 'force' fighters to take an exotic weapon to keep their damage up to level.
...
Check out this video.
...
Just to complement your videos, check out this one.
It shows a completely different style of polearm use (with a slashing polearm, a naginata in the video, but in a fantasy setting, a glaive or guisarme may be imagined to be used in a similiar way).
10' would go from the middle of your square (if you're a medium creature) to the middle of the reach square. From the edge of your square to the middle of the reach square would be 7.5'. So, I don't have a problem with the size mentioned and I can see them having some use in the adjacent squares, too.
Yes, that would be true if you could grip it on the very end like a sword. A polearm is gripped with the forward hand at about 1/4th to 1/3rd of the length. In fact, that is the origin of the term "quarterstaff" (the style of holding it in the middle and striking with both ends is called "halfstaffing"). For a polearm with a metal head, you need your grip farther forward than the minimum for a quarterstaff. So, from your hand you only "reach" about six feet to the far edge of the adjacent tile.
Thing is, I've seen some sojutsu done with a massive pike, or omi no yari, at ~12', and those aren't realistically weapons that can wielded in a 360-degree arc in a 6 second round. If we are talking about, as a base mechanic, the ability to attack any of the 12 squares at 10' reach, which is what reach weapons can do as a base capacity, we cannot realistically be talking about the true historic ~12' pike.
Yes, a Reach weapon should only threaten a limited arc.
Check out this video. Is this the length you are describing for reach weapons? That's about 8-9', by my estimate. It's absolutely able to strike 12 squares, maybe the full 20 if you allow haft strikes.But that is equivalent to the weapons listed as Pole Arms but not as Reach weapons. They're already accounted for, however poorly. They should be able to attack but not threaten the second tile. To do so would provoke AoO from adjacent tiles. Anything shorter is just a 2H weapon, and problems with the mechanic for that is another matter.
IF you are instead describing all reach weapons as shown in this video, then that explains our difference of opinion. I think these are Monkeygripped Huge Polearms, and not the normal, listed, Large polearms on the list.
No, that is what a true "reach" weapon is. It is only able to threaten tiles 10' away, and cannot be used to attack adjacent tiles. There are "monkeygripped" Huge Polearms like historic 18-24' pikes, and they're not covered at all.
Well, at least we now know how we disagree on this.
As per my research, the etymology of the term quarterstaff is ambiguous at best, and I am remarkably hesitant to present any academic opinion based on such.
I do respect your studied opinion on the matter, but I consider the halberd, as does Britannica, specifically substantively different from the yari and long naginata as illustrated in the above videos.
The halberd and guandao, as ~5.5' weapons, are certainly not going to threaten at 10', and although it does make a certain amount of simulational sense to pare back all reach weapons to only be able to attack, but not threaten at 10', that sort of extreme nerf is not at something which I feel resonable within the scope of the PFRPG. I certainly, as do you, consider the longer weapons different from the mid-range of polearm lengths, and my position is that the mid length weapons are in fact what the system is attempting to model, whereas your position is that the longer weapons are what the system is attempting to model. To classify the mid length polearms in with the halberd class weapons, in my opinion, is unfair to the weapons' tactical, historical use.
Well, at least we now know how we disagree on this.
As per my research, the etymology of the term quarterstaff is ambiguous at best, and I am remarkably hesitant to present any academic opinion based on such.
I'm going on the research of Terry Brown in London on that one. There was a strict differentiation between the quarterstaff as a method/style of use and halfstaff as a method/style in literature of the 16th c and turn of the 17th c (no earlier writings known at present). In general, anything less than 8' was considered a "shortstaff" rather than a quarterstaff, but would be used quarterstaff-style whenever possible.
I do respect your studied opinion on the matter, but I consider the halberd, as does Britannica, specifically substantively different from the yari and long naginata as illustrated in the above videos.
Yes, I was specifically referring to weapons in the 8-10 foot range like those in the video, and specifically said anything shorter was "just a 2H weapon" as listed. There were indeed halberds of that length used and still in use by the Swiss Guard, for example. (In pictures the haft is about 7' and total length over 8', assuming the men are about 6' tall.) The English bills were made in lengths from 6 to 12 feet, but around 8' was most typical. The confusion arises because most surviving examples were weapons designed for defense inside castles rather than open battlefield weapons.
The halberd and guandao, as ~5.5' weapons, are certainly not going to threaten at 10', and although it does make a certain amount of simulational sense to pare back all reach weapons to only be able to attack, but not threaten at 10', that sort of extreme nerf is not at something which I feel resonable within the scope of the PFRPG. I certainly, as do you, consider the longer weapons different from the mid-range of polearm lengths, and my position is that the mid length weapons are in fact what the system is attempting to model, whereas your position is that the longer weapons are what the system is attempting to model. To classify the mid length polearms in with the halberd class weapons, in my opinion, is unfair to the weapons' tactical, historical use.
No, I'm proposing that any "reach" weapons can be made to either length, as the purchaser desires. Either it will be a true reach weapon that cannot attack adjacent tiles (except clumsy and easily countered slapping with the haft), or it will be able to attack both halfstaff (with penalty) and at reach but not threaten reach tiles.
I'd rather see a feat similar to Short Haft from PHB2 added to Pathfinder, instead of just allowing reach weapons to attack adjacent at a -2.
The best part of the Short Haft feat (from this DM's POV) is that using it to attack an adjacent square costs a swift action, this means that the user can't switch between adjacent and reach targets at their whim multiple times within a single round.
-Skeld
No, this should be automatic for anyone using a polearm. Maybe base it on them having BAB 1+.
It should not be a feat or a class ability. It should not require special training at all.
Anyone who picks up a long weapon and has even one or two fights or sparring matches or practice sessions will very quickly learn to "choke up" for close quarters combat with their long weapon.
Heck, even the larger swords almost always had a "ricasso" portion of the blade, an unsharpened portion of the blade near the hilt that was suitable for holding the weapon by the blade when necessary.
I for one would prefer to see this as a standard combat rule. Anyone with any reach weapon can "short haft" as a swift action.
From a simulation standpoint, the weapon system is, as it stands, not a reasonable model. Abstracted weapon lengths are a huge problem when you consider weapons like the kukri, dagger, and gauntlet, having equivalent reach to the greatsword. While not accurate for the way the weapons are used (I, for one, would not take a case of daggers or spiked gauntlet to a swordfight), with regards to the reach weapons, it makes it fairly reasonable to determine if a quarterstaffed weapon allows a "queue" or haft strike, and if so, if allowing a haft strike fits within the overall goal of weapon abstraction. Assuming that Fighters and other skilled weapon users are not baseball bat swinging with their weapons (as reflected by not taking the -4 non-proficient penalty with them), I think it is reasonable, by way of Talhoffer, Le Jeu, Sojutsu, et al, to allow "queue" or haft strikes, regardless of whether we are discussing the 8' or 13' polearm, as queue strikes are part of documented technique sets in multiple guards.
Unless, of course, Le Jeu, Talhoffer, Sojutsu, et al are not useable with longer poleweapons. I fundementally disagree with that premise, as I have done it.
The Fighter in my last campaign was a guisarme specialist and was always taking a 5' step with her reach weapon. After the rest of the team got used to moving a bit each round as well (and not just standing in place performing a string of actions) we got to liking it.
The Fighter in my last campaign was a guisarme specialist and was always taking a 5' step with her reach weapon. After the rest of the team got used to moving a bit each round as well (and not just standing in place performing a string of actions) we got to liking it.
I certainly assume this as the default action for reach weapon wielders.
But take a hypothetical situation, where you cannot take the 5' step needed to put the opponent back at the 10' threatened area. Per Tallhofer, Le Jeu, and sojutsu training, a polearm user should use the butt of the weapon to intercept the opponent who is trying to come inside the guard.
-----
|1->2
In this scenario, 1 cannot withdraw, as there is a wall there. What most polearm style manuals which survive recommend is to do this:
-<---
|1\2_
This is a poor illustration, but, maintaining the "quarterstaff" grip, you bring the haft of the weapon up, and continue to "threaten" with the butt or haft. It doesn't require "halfstaffing" to do so, unlike this:
-\---
|1>2_
which would require "halfstaff" grip.
If you don't have room to back up, you don't have room to swing the head behind you in order to slip the forward grip and swing the butt up to threaten. You need 6' clear on either side to half-staff a reach weapon, and then you're still going to be slow as molasses.
Reach weapons are not intended for solitary use, but for formations of masses reach weapons or teamed with footmen.
If you don't have room to back up, you don't have room to swing the head behind you in order to slip the forward grip and swing the butt up to threaten. You need 6' clear on either side to half-staff a reach weapon, and then you're still going to be slow as molasses.
Reach weapons are not intended for solitary use, but for formations of masses reach weapons or teamed with footmen.
And this is why most polearms aren't good adventuring tools. You need a formation for them to truly work as intended.
And this is why most polearms aren't good adventuring tools. You need a formation for them to truly work as intended.If you don't have room to back up, you don't have room to swing the head behind you in order to slip the forward grip and swing the butt up to threaten. You need 6' clear on either side to half-staff a reach weapon, and then you're still going to be slow as molasses.
Reach weapons are not intended for solitary use, but for formations of masses reach weapons or teamed with footmen.
Not really. It can be very effective as one half of a melee pair. Since we're not going to face formations (generally) most combat is microscopic compared to anything you would want a formation for.
Consider the 10' AoO a polearm gives you. When paired with an armored cleric (such as we had done) this gives the cleric that very formidle first round breathing space with which to buff himself, or the fighter (or anyone really). The massive amount of damage that the guisarme sometimes did for AoOs was eye-popping.This also seemed to propel that dangerous "front line" area even further from the missle launching members of the team (the "squishies").
True, none of this excludes one from using the same tactic with a spiked chain. But consider the feat better spent on overhand chop or improved trip (especially at the lower levels before feat stackage nullifies this issue).
I think polearms are very useful for lower level adventurers who are in a team with more then one melee capable character.
Homemade Feats for making polearms more formidable:
Shortshaft requires +1 BAB characters with this feat may use a move action to shorten their grip on a polearm to attack enemies at 5'. The polearm is treated as threat capable equivalent to the spiked chain.
Precise Impalement requires Shortshaft, and weapon focus polearm characters with precise impalement may attack enemies already engaged in melee at their polearms reach range without the -4 penalty to attack and ignores cover of less the total cover.
Stoic Spearman requires Precise Impalement and +6 BAB characters with Stoic Spearman feat may use all bonus of having set versus charge to any AoO made from AoOs due to movement.
... When paired with an armored cleric (such as we had done) this gives the cleric that very formidle first round breathing space with which to buff himself, or the fighter (or anyone really). The massive amount of damage that the guisarme sometimes did for AoOs was eye-popping. ...
Yes, that why I said, "Reach weapons are not intended for solitary use, but for formations of masse[d] reach weapons or teamed with footmen." That is an alternative.
But a reach polearm can't be the be-all and end-all of weapons, as proposed super-feats would do. Let's leave that for Epic-level play, and keep reach weapons as reach weapons for mere magic-enhanced uber-mortals.
... When paired with an armored cleric (such as we had done) this gives the cleric that very formidle first round breathing space with which to buff himself, or the fighter (or anyone really). The massive amount of damage that the guisarme sometimes did for AoOs was eye-popping. ...Yes, that why I said, "Reach weapons are not intended for solitary use, but for formations of masse[d] reach weapons or teamed with footmen." That is an alternative.
But a reach polearm can't be the be-all and end-all of weapons, as proposed super-feats would do. Let's leave that for Epic-level play, and keep reach weapons as reach weapons for mere magic-enhanced uber-mortals.
Right, I thought you meant formations of footmen. I would call a formation at least four people (in 2 ranks of 2 files) at the minimum. That was why I elaborated.
The feats I proposed arent superfeats. Are they?
Homemade Feats for making polearms more formidable:
Shortshaft requires +1 BAB characters with this feat may use a move action to shorten their grip on a polearm to attack enemies at 5'. The polearm is treated as threat capable equivalent to the spiked chain.
Not bad, considering the amount of weapon abstraction that is occuring with the weapons system as written. Some folks won't like it, considering that they consider such a thing a physical impossibility with a "reach" weapon, but then we are back into a semantic discussion with regard to how much reach a reach weapon actually has. Again, I reiterate, if a dagger, unarmed, standard spear, quarterstaff, and greatsword all have 5' reach in a 360 degree arc, then I'm okay with "reach" weapons not being 13'+ pikes. Some folks aren't.
Precise Impalement requires Shortshaft, and weapon focus polearm characters with precise impalement may attack enemies already engaged in melee at their polearms reach range without the -4 penalty to attack and ignores cover of less the total cover.
Ignoring cover is cool, but I wasn't aware that you took a -4 penalty to attack for someone you threatened.
Stoic Spearman requires Precise Impalement and +6 BAB characters with Stoic Spearman feat may use all bonus of having set versus charge to any AoO made from AoOs due to movement.
Also nice. I think this is solid, although only the longspear can benefit from this, as it is the only weapon with reach that can be set against a charge. I'd prefer something more generic which could be used with the glaive, lance, and other reach polearms.