I know it's a bit late, but I already asked these questions when the Adventurer's Armory came out (from which the APG took over the new polearms).
1)Bardiche:
How is it possible for a weapon that doesn't deal piercing damage to have the 'brace' special rule?
Also, historically, the Bardiche was not a 'reach' weapon. It almost never was taller than it's wielder.
See these links:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bardiches
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Strelsy.jpeg&filetimest amp=20070711015037
2)Glaive-Guisarme:
Same as for the Bardiche, how can a weapon without piercing damage have the 'brace' special rule?
Especially since both the Glaive and the Guisarme don't have 'brace'.
3)Bill:
Again, why does a weapon that doesn't deal piercing damage have the 'brace' special rule?
4)Bec de Corbin/Lucerne Hammer:
These two weapons have almost exactly the same rules. This, ironically, makes sense since they just represent two different names for one and the same historical weapon.
It is detrimental for the game however since it effectively reduces the player's available weapon choices.
Since, historically, these polearms also existed with shorter hafts (in fact most of them were about the length of a halberd), I would propose removing the 'reach' special rule on one of them, thus differentiating them more and increasing the player's choices.
'Reach' could be replaced with 'trip' since, just like the halberd, a non-reach version is ideal for tripping opponents (which would be too hard to pull off at reach).
How is it possible for a weapon that doesn't deal piercing damage to have the 'brace' special rule?
Because Brace special feature has nothing to do with piercing.
4)Bec de Corbin/Lucerne Hammer:
These two weapons have almost exactly the same rules.
It is detrimental for the game however since it effectively reduces the player's available weapon choices.
The Bec de corbin deals less damage normally (d10 vs d12 for med), but has a higher critical multiplier than the lucerne hammer (x3 instead of x2).
Thus the user has the choice between a larger die, or a larger crit multiplier.
Brace special feature has nothing to do with piercing.
Please explain to me why not.
How is it possible to "set a weapon against a charge" and "deal double damage", if it doesn't even have a forward facing pointed end (which would entail that it deals piercing damage)?For the Glaive-Guisarme and especially the Bill the alternative would be to add the piercing damage type. In the case of the Bill this wouldn't be too much of a problem (especially since historically there were Bills with pointed ends), but the giving this damage type to the Glaive-Guisarme would also mean that either the Glaive or the Guisarme from the core book would have to gain the piercing type AND the 'brace' rule.
For the Bardiche it just wouldn't make any sense. Look at the links. There is no way such a weapon could be effectively set against a charge and deal double damage.
Thus the user has the choice between a larger die, or a larger crit multiplier.
Yeah, I (barely) noticed... It's the smallest possible difference.
If that small a difference between weapons is enough to justify making them separate weapons, then there are plenty of other weapons that have much better reasons to be included in the rulebooks instead.
|
"brace" may be a bad word to describe it, but its the name of the mechanic.
its "if you're ready for an opponent to charge you, deal double damage". Dont read too much into it. We aren't do mythbusters tests here,its not a perfect simulation.
honestly, piercing damage sucks (few things have dr/piercing, most have slashing or bludgeoning)
You can ready against a charge with any weapon.
The difference with 'brace' weapons is that they can deal double damage in this situation.
The reason for this is that they use the enemy's speed, the fact that they have a haft that is planted in the ground and a sharp point.
The result is an impaled enemy.
See Braveheart for the perfect example.
Many of us would have made the game differently, if it were our game.
It is not.
My suggestion to you is to resign yourself to the fact that the game will probably not change to reflect your personal quibbles, or to make your own game.
-Kle.
Thanks for the positive comment!
The fact that erratas and FAQs are published contradicts you though.And even if it doesn't have an effect, I don't see why this would mean I shouldn't post my questions.
Your comment just comes over as telling others to shut up - not very polite.
Meanwhile, can I interpret your lack of response to the issues I raised as an agreement with them?
I'm sure i'll be accused of being dick-ish, but I gotta ask:
Alch, do you just really like piercing weapons, and think they're the only kind that should be used for maneuvers and whatnot?
|
I agree with Thomas-- I thin the Brace special feature has less to do with the shape of the weapon's head and more to do with its haft-- the long haft of a polearm provides leverage and the brace-arm means that instead of the opponent's momentum pushing you and the weapon back with the force of the blow, the weapon is braced on the ground and the weapon doesn't move back, imparting more of the opponent's momentum into the force of the blow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And even if it doesn't have an effect, I don't see why this would mean I shouldn't post my questions.
You should post your questions.
If it's a rules question, this is the place for it. You asked how brace works, and about the difference between two weapons. Both were answered in the second post.
If you'd like to discuss the ramifications of house-ruling the brace feature to only work on piercing weapons, removing certain polearms, and adding new weapons, the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forums might be a better place for that.
The reason you're facing a little hostility (or terseness that comes off as hostility) is that the rules are clear, and it sounds like you're simply complaining that the rules don't accurately model a film. Negativity breeds negativity. It's important to remember that the forums don't always (or often) convey the correct emotion attached to the writing, and it's something we're all (to some extent) passionate about, so if you feel someone is being a complete jerk, most of the time it's just an error in translation.
May I point out that ramming yourself at over 10 mph straight onto a sledge hammer braced against the ground will hurt like heck? further more the titanic tore its size open along the iceberg resulting in its sinking where as just ramming it would have allowed it to stay afloat. I.e. imagine a sword ripping all along the side of your horse as opposed to just making a slash across the front.
The question is, does the planted sledge hammer warrant DOUBLE DAMAGE.
There is a HUGE difference between "impaling" yourself on a sledge hammer and running into a spear.
In terms of physics Saturn hit the nail on the head. In terms of physics you're running into something that (by nature of brace) has no give. Basically think F=ma not pressure here.
Usually when you hit something the thing moves slightly and so do you, allowing you to absorb the impact over an amount of time. Because of brace the thing cannot move and thus the moment of time you must absorb your own motion becomes nearly instantaneous. So a = v/t where t is the time for velocity to hit 0 and v is your velocity. when you brace it t approaches 0 and thus acceleration approaches infinity (precalculus with limits) Since your mass is constant F=ma when they brace a becomes huge thus F becomes huge since m is a constant.
I absolutely agree. This is why I said one of the elements of the 'brace' rule is the long haft that can be planted in the ground.
However there is a second aspect and that is the upward facing sharp point. In terms of physics it means that the delivery of the huge F is concentrated on that point, thus making it deadly and warranting the double damage.I mean, otherwise many other two-handed weapons would have to have the 'brace' rule.
You should post your questions.
If it's a rules question, this is the place for it. You asked how brace works, and about the difference between two weapons. Both were answered in the second post.
If you'd like to discuss the ramifications of house-ruling the brace feature to only work on piercing weapons, removing certain polearms, and adding new weapons, the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forums might be a better place for that.
The reason you're facing a little hostility (or terseness that comes off as hostility) is that the rules are clear, and it sounds like you're simply complaining that the rules don't accurately model a film. Negativity breeds negativity. It's important to remember that the forums don't always (or often) convey the correct emotion attached to the writing, and it's something we're all (to some extent) passionate about, so if you feel someone is being a complete jerk, most of the time it's just an error in translation.
With the exception of the APG, all other rulebooks have the 'brace' rule exclusively for piercing weapons. And since every weapon in the 'Martial Weapons' 'Two-Handed Melee Weapons' block had 'brace' (and 'reach'), I thought it might have been a formatting error.
You are right. This thread definitely has elements of a suggestions thread... so it's like a hybrid thread ;)
I'm just trying to help improve the game. I think it's a pity that as soon as one tries to present a possible way to improve the rules or even just discuss them, people get defensive.
Guys, don't forget that messageboards can be a clumsy way to communicate. Someone who meant to be slightly sarcastic/cynical can come across as a jerk when they meant to be humorous. Someone trying to clarify his view can come across as stubbornly belabouring his point.
The OP's first concern seemed to be that many weapons in the APG had the "brace" feature, which had previously been characteristic of thrusting weapons such as spears or tridents. My interpretation of this was that the weapons are not primarily used in that manner, but often have spikes or projections that made them capable of such use.
The OP's second concern was that essentially similar weapons were being given separate statistics and differing properties. This seemed arbitrary. While I appreciate his concern, I'm willing to consider such related weapons to represent the different extremes of the relevant weapon forms.
To further discuss an example cited earlier, some people were surprised when earlier releases didn't make the halberd a reach weapon. In Earth's history, halberds ranged between 5 ft. and almost 8 ft. in length. The halberd could be considered a reach weapon or one suited for close combat.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If you want to be more accurate you would almost need to treat it as a sort of dual weapon that is treated as a spear when braced and a bardiche when wielded normally. That sort of rules jiggery doesn't translate well into stat blocks though so it was probably simplified to do appropriate damage based on the most common use case.
The OP's first concern seemed to be that many weapons in the APG had the "brace" feature, which had previously been characteristic of thrusting weapons such as spears or tridents.
Strangely enough though, Ultimate Combat returns to the "brace for piercing weapons only" paradigm. This is what actually motivated me to re-post this.
My interpretation of this was that the weapons are not primarily used in that manner, but often have spikes or projections that made them capable of such use.
This makes sense, but at the same time one might ask why these weapons can't deal piercing damage with their spikes and projections.
Also, following this explanation, there are several weapons in the core rulebook that are as much or even more likely to have the 'brace' rule. Take the Ranseur or the Lance for example. Both spear-like weapons without 'brace'. Or, as mentioned before, the Glaive and Guisarme.The OP's second concern was that essentially similar weapons were being given separate statistics and differing properties. This seemed arbitrary. While I appreciate his concern, I'm willing to consider such related weapons to represent the different extremes of the relevant weapon forms.
I absolutely agree. This is also entirely probable. Historically, even fundamentally equivalent weapons differed in their detailed designs from region to region or even from manufacturer to manufacturer.
My point was more from a game design perspective. Since there are only a limited amount of weapons for a player to choose from, why make two of them almost identical?To further discuss an example cited earlier, some people were surprised when earlier releases didn't make the halberd a reach weapon. In Earth's history, halberds ranged between 5 ft. and almost 8 ft. in length. The halberd could be considered a reach weapon or one suited for close combat.
True, but the short Halberds definitely existed historically and thus it is a reasonable game design choice to establish the Halberd in Pathfinder as the shorter version.
This, in fact, is exactly what I meant when I proposed that one of the Lucerne Hammer or the Bec de Corbin be made a non-reach weapon. Just like the Halberd, this weapon type existed with shorter (5 ft) and longer (up to 8 ft) hafts. At the same time the choices for players are increased.
Might i remind you that due to the "haft" or holding portion of certain weapons they are unsuitable for bracing. You mentioned the greatsword and the lance. both of the weapons handles, which you are suggesting bracing against the ground, are at most a foot and a half long and even that is a stretch. Can you imagine crouching on the ground holding the handle trying to keep the weapon steadied and braced for the charge? if you braced such a thing even slightly incorrectly i.e. the point was even slightly off the charge the weapon would simply be deflected as the person ran into you and you'd be shoved flat on your back being trampled.
I didn't mention the Greatsword. But in the case of the Lance, you are right. And that is the reason why it doesn't have the 'brace' rule.
My argument was hypothetical: If such unsuitable (for "bracing", that is) weapons have the 'brace' rule then others, like the Lance (but also the Ranseur, Glaive and Guisarme), should also have it. As I stated in the OP, I'd prefer it the other way around.On a side note, finding a reason why the Ranseur does not have the 'brace' rule is harder. As a spear-like polearm it should be a prime candidate. One argument might be that its tip was too thin and thus too fragile for bracing, but that is a relatively weak argument.
Your first picture is a Glaive-Guisarme and I agree with you that it would be suitable for bracing even if it isn't a piercing weapon....HOWEVER, why does the Glaive, which is exactly the same weapon minus the hook opposite the blade, NOT have 'brace' too then?
Your second picture is a Bill. The top side of the Bill is blunt. As such, running it to that isn't very painful, especially if you're wearing any kind of protection. And in any case a world apart from the utterly lethal damage of running into a spear tip (which is the standard to which it has to hold up).
Your third picture is a Bardiche. Now I agree that this one might have 'brace', but there are others where the top is rounded all the way back. Then again, if we allowed 'brace' here, the same question remains as to why the Glaive doesn't have 'brace', since its blade is similarly shaped.
That aside, my main problem with the Bardiche is that it is a 'reach' weapon, which, historically, it definitely wasn't. It never was taller than its wielder.
No no, your bill is correct. The original Bill was a slashing weapon with the sharp edge on the inward curving side. Later Bills were piercing weapons with a hook, identical to a Guisarme (but that's a separate problem, since the core rulebook has the Guisarme as a slashing weapon, which historically it wasn't...).
Here are pictures for both:
http://www.ambroseantiques.com/armour/billcopy.htm
http://www.ambroseantiques.com/armour/bill.htm
http://www.skinnerinc.com/asp/fullcataloguese.asp?salelot=2272+++++662A& ;refno=++584509
A 5 to 6 foot weapon isn't long enough to be a reach weapon. Reach weapons start at 7 feet and go beyond 9 feet. This also makes sense in game terms, since the reach weapon needs to bridge a 5 foot gap as well as penetrate the next square and leave enough length to be held in 2 hands. So 7 feet is the absolute minimum.
I think, if I can find a little time, I'll write up something for a thread in the Suggestions forum about how one could make the Polearms in the core rulebook and APG more historically accurate. With pictures and all.
I would offer that the pole arms offered in the books are more along the lines of 'dueling' pole arms than their actual full length counterparts. Dueling length weapons were known (and used for such) doing 'historically accurate' (honestly a meaningless phrase in both pathfinder and D&D incidentally) and come closer to meeting what is presented mechanically speaking.
Though the precise names and terms for describing these weapons has been garbled often enough throughout history (and books on the subject) to make it happening in a recreational text such as the core rulebook pretty understandable.