|
So, I'm starting a new paladin character in PFS today, and have decided to equip him with a reach weapon (a bardiche), due to recommendations that reach weapons are awesome. Since I've never played with a reach weapon on a front-line character before, I thought I'd give it a try.
Now that I think about it, however, I don't really know exactly what its strengths are, and how to actually use it in combat.
So, the major strength I see is that, at the beginning of combat, I can ready an action to attack the first person in range, and then if anyone without reach tries to attack me, they end up taking the readied attack, and then the AoO as they try to move further inward. Once they get within my reach, however, it seems that the fight just becomes a moving dance of 5-feet increments.
If I'm trying to protect my party, I can see myself get herded away quite easily just by them keeping inside my reach, forcing me away until there's a clear path to the squishy member in the back. What about if I'm paired with another melee character who decides to charge at the beginning of combat? I'm then stuck in the back, forced to now run up with him, while he gets beat on by the others.
I've paired it with a cestus until I can afford to buy armor spikes, to use if I get cornered or grappled (or step-up'ed). Am I also allowed to use the cestus to threaten adjacent while wielding the bardiche? If not, it might just be better to carry around a scimitar to switch to when needed.
You're correct about the 5 ft step dance. That's how all PF/3E full attack combat tends to play out (if not due to reach weapons, then trying to position for a flank or something). Definitely get armor spikes or something to threaten adjacent. The Step Up feat exists, and it's just as good at screwing a reach weapon user over as it is at not screwing over a spellcaster (who can just make an easy concentration check and laugh the threat off).
You hear a lot about how awesome reach weapons are, but I think much of that is left-over from 3E. Back then, combat maneuvers were easier to pull off and less feat intensive, so making a "tripper" was much more viable. Also, the 3E Stand Still feat actually worked on non-adjacent targets and had a MUCH higher success rate. So in 3E, you could make a very simple "lockdown" reach fighter build that utilized tripping and Stand Still to keep foes from moving. Less common, but in 3E you could also attempt a grapple on an AoO, so trying to wrestle someone that moved past you was also an option.
Kind of a side note, but in 3E, the spiked chain was actually a good weapon and could threaten reach and adjacent, so many reach builds spent a feat to get that and have no drawbacks.
In PF, it really isn't that good any more. Especially not without the entire trip feat line, which requires an Int 13 that a Paladin likely can't afford, 3 feats (you get no bonus feats as a Paladin), and doesn't get good till Greater Trip at BAB +6 (level 7). And unless fighting a Smite target, your CMB will have poor chances of success.
Paladin's best bet for protecting the party is to grab a falchion (keen or Imp. Crit as son as possible) and power attack and just do so much damage that enemies HAVE to focus their attention on him. He can heal himself as a swift, but foes won't realize that till after they've engagd him in melee for a while, when it's too late for the realization to matter much. You may want to consider the Step Up feat, as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could take Catch-off Guard then use your shaft (of the polearm!) as an improvised weapon. Then you wouldn't have to 5' every time.
The effective thing you can do with a reach weapon is trip or disarm foes before they can affect you. Paladins are largely about smiting evil, though, rather than fighting clever. They can do it, but when all your advantages are focussed at doing damage in combat, it does make sense to go that way.
If you really want to do both, sword & board is the way to go.
Two Weapon Fighting + Improved Shield Bash + shield spikes on a light shield and you will do some serious damage, especially when smiting. For your primary weapon a rapier or scimitar (or if you can afford the feats, a falcata) will have the threat range to be nasty, and your shield adds a bonus attack.
You can have both a reach weapon and a close weapon. When the enemy closes, drop the polearm and draw your you-name-it.
Isn't there an ability in an archetype that allows the reach weapon to be used not as as reach weapon?
Shalafi: That's the polearm master archetype.
|
|
think of a reach weapon + combat reflexes as having a large number of attacks each round. in some encounters i get 5 attacks with full bab + modifiers each round. in other rounds i get 2 or 3, keep in mind this is at level 1 and 2.
reach weapons are great for clearing fodder troops before you get to the big baddy. once you get to the big baddy you rely on your mage to grease, or what ever spell they like, the target to keep it stationary. he did his job, you did yours, clearing fodder then power attacking and hitting like a truck.
|
I can't imagine why you wouldn't be able to fight adjacent foes with a gauntlet or cestus while wielding a polearm. It strikes me as very intuitive.
Cheapy has pointed out the staff end of the polearm as a weapon via Catch Off Guard, and it's a good idea. Yet you can easily do more than that. It's easy to slide one's grip further up the polearm in order to shorten it, which combined with a shift in the angle you hold it at can easily allow attacks with the head if it's designed for that.
Alternatively, yanking the weapon back can, with a compatible head, result in a piercing attack to the back; 'they' cite the pointy tips of axe heads as a way this works.
Or so I hear. The idea seems to occasionally be floated around in medieval weapon manuals as well as a few modern authors discussing them (these are the 'they' in question), and when I look at it the notion seems reasonable. You might have to take a sec to explain to the DM how this works, but I don't see why it would be a problem.
|
I don't know how viable this is, but one possible plan is to take TWF and Improved Shield Bash (I think that's the one that lets you make free Bull Rushes.)
If you can use a shield bash to bull rush your opponent backward, then get in a hit or two with your reach weapon, then 5 foot step back, they're forced to take the AoO every time they want to smack you in melee.
Remember, if you're using a reach weapon, Enlarge Person gives you an absolutely ridiculous range.
Actually, if you want to protect your party, a reach weapon, (along with Combat reflexes, a DEX of 14, Bodyguard and In Harms way) works fantastic. You can use those unused AoO to give a bonus of +2 to friends within reach and if they are really getting hammed, take the damage for them. But yes, you do need armor spikes or you will be doing the dance of 5’ steps. This worked really well for my Inquisitor.
At least this was something 4e got right.
Reach weapons should let you attack adjacent.
|
Actually, if you want to protect your party, a reach weapon, (along with Combat reflexes, a DEX of 14, Bodyguard and In Harms way) works fantastic. You can use those unused AoO to give a bonus of +2 to friends within reach and if they are really getting hammed, take the damage for them. But yes, you do need armor spikes or you will be doing the dance of 5’ steps. This worked really well for my Inquisitor.
This only works with adjacent allies, not allies within the reach of your weapon.
|
Really, when using weapons with reach, you want to concentrate on preventing your opponents from getting inside the reach. That can be done with trip attacks, followed up with either regular damage attacks or disarm attacks.
As mentioned, for this build you need Combat Reflexes, so you can get in AoOs as your opponent stands up, and tries to pick up his weapon.
No trip-locking, but that is where adding disarm to the mix can make it more fun. At least for you.
Enemy approaches, you trip him.
He starts to stand up, provoking an AoO, you disarm him.
He then picks up his weapon, provoking another AoO, you trip him.
Rinse & repeat.
Oh, but the better builds for this are probably not going to be Paladins. Lore Warden Fighter, Polearm Master Fighter, Maneuver Monk, maybe some other builds.
|
If you're worried that you won't be able to protect the casters because you'll be 5'-stepping back, my advice is to take Improved Bull Rush. Instead of you getting herded back, you can push the enemies away. And you don't have to move along with the target of a bull rush anymore, so you can pretty easily keep pushing the enemies away from the caster and AoO'ing them when they try to get back in range.
As mentioned, you definitely want Combat Reflexes as well. With a decent DEX score and proper positioning, you can get more AoO's per round then you'd get attacks in a full-attack action, at an earlier level than your BAB would even give you iteratives. The fact that Imp.Bull Rush uses Power Attack as its prereq is no drawback at all, since you'd want PA anyway.
|
|
... Hrm, apparently you can perform bull rushes & dirty tricks at reach? None of them say you have to be adjacent.
Even grapple could be done at reach, although at a -4 penalty for not having both hands free.
Unless otherwise stated by a weapon or feat, you cannot perform either of those manoeuvres with a weapon. Therefore, the reach of the weapon is irrelevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least this was something 4e got right.
Reach weapons should let you attack adjacent.
Actually I think that was more handholding on their part.
Reach weapons primary weakness was their unweildliness in close quarters. I'm perfectly fine with the simulation on it here.
My most recent character is a half-orc samurai with the toothy alternate racial trait. Didn't need to burn a feat as I got a primary natural attack within 5 feet.
Unless otherwise stated by a weapon or feat, you cannot perform either of those manoeuvres with a weapon. Therefore, the reach of the weapon is irrelevant.
Trip, disarm,sunder and reposition are done with the weapon, so you can do them at range.
At least this was something 4e got right.
Reach weapons should let you attack adjacent.
Actually I think that was more handholding on their part.
Reach weapons primary weakness was their unweildliness in close quarters. I'm perfectly fine with the simulation on it here.
There was a feat in 3.5 called Short Haft that allowed you to fight with a reach weapon up close at a penalty of -4.
|
|
Unless otherwise stated by a weapon or feat, you cannot perform either of those manoeuvres with a weapon. Therefore, the reach of the weapon is irrelevant.Trip, disarm,sunder and reposition are done with the weapon, so you can do them at range.
Yes, I know that. The poster I quoted was referring to bull rush and dirty trick. There's a feat that lets a character use dirty trick with a net, but I don't know of anything that lets a character bull rush with a weapon.
Well, Shield Slam does, effectively...
|
|
There's a feat that lets a character use dirty trick with a net, but I don't know of anything that lets a character bull rush with a weapon.
There's a couple, actually. Bull Rush Strike and Pushing Assault let you do it in place of a melee attack under certain conditions.
They won't work for me, but they're interesting.
Still can't find where it says that Combat Maneuvers need to be done within your natural reach.
Knockback (rage ability, 1/rage)
So why do you have to drop a polearm?
Consider this maneuver: Fighter with glaive, short sword, and quickdraw facing one enemy. On the foe's turn, foe moves adjacent, and takes an AoO,and attacks. Next on fighter's turn, fighter changes polearm status from "wielded" to "carried in off hand" (in my mind, a free action. You take your right hand off the stick.) next, fighter quickdraws the short sword with on hand and full attacks with it. After dicing up enemy, fighter sheaths short sword next round with a move action and resumes wielding the polearm.
Is this legit?
Don't have to, and yes it is legit. Many people assume if you are built a round THW fighting, you will want to still use a THW up close. So they assume you will drop the glaive and use a great axe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could take Catch-off Guard then use your shaft (of the polearm!) as an improvised weapon. Then you wouldn't have to 5' every time.
Cheapy's right; never forget to work the shaft.
Knockback (rage ability, 1/rage)
It's actually 1/round. Knockdown is oddly 1/rage instead. Thankfully with rage cycling, they're both eventually 1/round regardless. ;)
Just use armor spikes. Does the same base damage as the short sword, just costs a little more and has a worse crit range.
So hold the polearm in your left hand and use your right arm to forearm smack them. That's how one of the designers wished armor spikes worked anyway. :p
There's a feat that allows you to "knock back" a target 5'. Using this with a pole arm and combat reflexes is a good combination and prevents the 5' dance.
Knockback (rage ability, 1/rage)It's actually 1/round. Knockdown is oddly 1/rage instead. Thankfully with rage cycling, they're both eventually 1/round regardless. ;)
Well that just moved up to my level 2 rage power then.
I have Improved Unarmed Strike on my Barbarian. I assume it's fine to take close range AOOs with your fist even and continue wielding the polearm at reach normally?
Lastoth: Yes.
So why do you have to drop a polearm?
Consider this maneuver: Fighter with glaive, short sword, and quickdraw facing one enemy. On the foe's turn, foe moves adjacent, and takes an AoO,and attacks. Next on fighter's turn, fighter changes polearm status from "wielded" to "carried in off hand" (in my mind, a free action. You take your right hand off the stick.) next, fighter quickdraws the short sword with on hand and full attacks with it. After dicing up enemy, fighter sheaths short sword next round with a move action and resumes wielding the polearm.
Is this legit?
Yep. It's why fighters take Quickdraw.
So why do you have to drop a polearm?
Consider this maneuver: Fighter with glaive, short sword, and quickdraw facing one enemy. On the foe's turn, foe moves adjacent, and takes an AoO,and attacks. Next on fighter's turn, fighter changes polearm status from "wielded" to "carried in off hand" (in my mind, a free action. You take your right hand off the stick.) next, fighter quickdraws the short sword with on hand and full attacks with it. After dicing up enemy, fighter sheaths short sword next round with a move action and resumes wielding the polearm.
Is this legit?
Many folks claim switching hands like that is not a free action. I disagree, but I don;t think it is spelled out in the RAW.
I like the phalanx fighter archetype personally. You can two weapon fight that way if you want to (if you use a light shield you'll only have the -2/-2 penalty on attack rolls) covering both reach and close in while still getting a shield bonus to AC.
Here's a nasty pile of feats for the reach fighter-
Power Attack
(great) Cleave
(imp) Cleaving Finish
Combat Reflexes
Catch Off Guard (for close range)
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip (and greater trip)
Lunge
Every step of the way this build is fun. By the time you get to 11th level you're going to feel like Lu Bu from the Dynasty Warriors games.
Dip a level of Flowing Monk and take Vicious Stomp for added fun.