Where are hte polearms?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then that's a stats problem, I'm thinking. I don't think they make polearms very attractive weapons to use in the game, whereas apparently in reality, they were a very effective tool.

Why use a halberd, when you can get a greatsword, or mercurial greatsword or something?

Our own modest Mouseferatu (and another gentleman whose name currently escapes me) address that game-mechanical misaprehension with that article from Dragon that was reprinted in DCv1.

The polearms & Feats contained within make polearms VERY attractive. I got to use the rules with a Bisento (from AEG's OA D20/Rokugan, its 1d12 x2 slashing w/reach) in the hands of a Githzerai Monk/PsiWar. With a dex in the 20's, he was taking advantage of EVERY AoO provoked, and was dealing nearly as much damage as the Barbarian...while taking MUCH less in return. Flurry of Blows + Polearm (big damage & reach) is just UGLY.

 

[Banshee16]

Our own modest Mouseferatu (and another gentleman whose name currently escapes me) address that game-mechanical misaprehension with that article from Dragon that was reprinted in DCv1.

The polearms & Feats contained within make polearms VERY attractive. I got to use the rules with a Bisento (from AEG's OA D20/Rokugan, its 1d12 x2 slashing w/reach) in the hands of a Githzerai Monk/PsiWar. With a dex in the 20's, he was taking advantage of EVERY AoO provoked, and was dealing nearly as much damage as the Barbarian...while taking MUCH less in return. Flurry of Blows + Polearm (big damage & reach) is just UGLY.

I'll have to review those feats again.....I noticed one that allowed you to add 5' reach to a polearm, and another that allowed you to use a reach polearm in close, with a -2 penalty...but those are the only two I really read. It would be nice if there was a feat like "Large and in Charge" or whatever that one used to be called, that a medium sized character could use with a polearm, to help prevent fighters from getting inside the reach.

Banshee

 

[Zaruthustran]

In real life, no.
In D&D? maybe. I've seen polearms used in play perhaps... 5 times... in the past 18yrs. Swords are just "cooler"

Really? Since my first play-through using the Third Edition beta-testing rules, every one of my characters has carried some kind of polearm with Reach, even if it's just a longspear. That free AoO attack is just too good to pass up.

The game concept of reach makes polearms extremely valuable and potent. What pisses me off are players who say "okay, I draw my polearm and move up", when the character of said player has no magical solution.

From what kind of sheath, exactly, does one "draw" a 10' pole?

-z

(answer to the rhetorical: a hewards, a glove of storing, a quiver of ehlonha, or other extradimensional sheath).

 

[Stalker0]

Then that's a stats problem, I'm thinking. I don't think they make polearms very attractive weapons to use in the game, whereas apparently in reality, they were a very effective tool.

Why use a halberd, when you can get a greatsword, or mercurial greatsword or something?

Banshee

Well, a reach weapon has a definite advantage in the AOO you often get against an approaching opponent. If you look at low levels, a guy with a reach weapon will often kill people approaching them before the other guy even gets a swing in.

 

[Banshee16]

Well, a reach weapon has a definite advantage in the AOO you often get against an approaching opponent. If you look at low levels, a guy with a reach weapon will often kill people approaching them before the other guy even gets a swing in.

Are there any feats similar to "Large and in Charge" that work for normal characters? That feat is great for Large monsters, but it only works for those with a "natural" reach of 10' or more. So a polearm wouldn't count. But do fighters have anything similar?

Banshee

 

[cattoy]

Then that's a stats problem, I'm thinking. I don't think they make polearms very attractive weapons to use in the game, whereas apparently in reality, they were a very effective tool.

Why use a halberd, when you can get a greatsword, or mercurial greatsword or something?

Banshee

Because a greatsword takes a lot of steel, and a spear, not so much. Hence, when you look at the number of armed people involved in wars from the bronze age to the dawn of the gunpowder age, the vast majority of them were armed with pikes/spears and/or improvised weapons and only a tiny fraction armed with greatswords.

Professionals study logistics.

On a different scale, men packed shoulder to shoulder don't do well when you arm them all with greatswords. They do make a fine pike square, though. Of course, in a world/game system where massed combat is a bad idea (fireball bait) this is lagely irrelevant.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Of course, in a world/game system where massed combat is a bad idea (fireball bait) this is lagely irrelevant.

You know, following up on this, taking it to its full scale culture-wide conclusion, would be a fascinating idea.

In a high-magic world, where fireballs and the like can be expected on almost every battlefield, what sort of combat tactics would evolve? What sort [i[wouldn't[/i] evolve? What would a formation of pikemen look like? What would a cavalry charge look like? Would the shield wall ever have been developed? Why or why not?

I don't have the real-world military knowledge it would take to do something like this on my own, but it'd be a great project to participate in on the fringes, or just to buy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Its Arthur C. Clarke all over again, Mouseferatu, except that in this case, any magic, significantly powerful enough, is indistinguishable from high-tech.

The pressures of things like fireballs on combat tactics are no different than the pressures faced by modern battlefield tactics because of grenades, mortars, mines, rockets & missiles.

Lightning bolt? 50 caliber sniper rifle.

Sleep? Gas grenade.

And so forth.

When someone compares a wizard or sorcerer to a howitzer, they are essentially being very accurate in their analogy...though to be 100% accurate, they should be considered mobile howitzers...or better yet, an aircraft carrier, if you prefer nautical combat.

You don't bunch up any more than you have to. The most powerful unit (in terms of long range projection of power) is kept at the center of the formation. Certain units act to take down stealththier enemies or take out the enemy's equivalent to your power unit.

If the caster is the aircraft carrier, the party around them becomes analogous to the various support combat roles that protect the main damage dealer from being taken out. Rogues and Monks are like submarines and minesweeper/minelayers. Fighters and Barbarians become battleships. Rangers become destroyers and missile cruisers. Clerics are your med ships. Paladins are kind of like special forces/marines- first in, last out. Bards...are the USO?

OK, no analogy is perfect...

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hmm...

I agree that a lot of the analogies between magic and modern weapons tech are apt, but there's one major difference.

In a high-magic D&D setting, the destructive spells have (at least potentially) been around almost as long as war itself. In the real world, lots of military tactics developed well before the creation of the analogous technology.

So what I'm curious about is, how would military tactics have developed under those circumstances. (Or, to continue the analogy, how would real-world tactics have developed if the first warring tribes/nations already had access to howitzers, sniper rifles, and air support?)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In a high-magic D&D setting, the destructive spells have (at least potentially) been around almost as long as war itself.

Actually, that would vary from campaign to campaign. Much like RW military technology, the Art would improve at an increasing pace. Firearms were invented hundreds of years ago...but repeat fire weapons are relatively new. And now we have experimental weapons like Metalstorm that can fire 1 million rounds per minute.

2000 years ago in D'arcaniaa, the most powerful magics might have been Enchantments and Illusions. Fireballs might be only 300 hundred years old. Wish might only have been discovered 80 years ago.

On the other hand, in a higher-magic campaign, Og might have only discovered fire after he discovered Pyrotechnics.

So what I'm curious about is, how would military tactics have developed under those circumstances. (Or, to continue the analogy, how would real-world tactics have developed if the first warring tribes/nations already had access to howitzers, sniper rifles, and air support?)

Well, tactics are dictated by weapons, though it may take some time to learn what the best tactics are. The Tank was introduced in WW1, but it took Hitler's Blitzkrieg to show the value of massed armored units with infantry support.

So what would have happened is that the tactics could have evolved more quickly than they did, resulting in sophisticated modern warfare tactics in an age just discovering steel...

or spellpower could have been so overwhelming that people wouldn't have figured it out for a while (mirroring RW technological pacing).

By that I mean with powerful magics being available early in human history, every skirmish becomes a potential Pearl Harbor/Dresden/Hiroshima. Real tactics might not evolve for some time because there wouldn't be a tactic better than "Strike hard, first" until someone figured out a counterspell, or tried to "judo" an enemy spellcaster...like by setting up a "Potemkin" village for him to exhaust his spells upon, then killing him, then counterstriking.

One thing is for sure, though...Castles should DEFINITELY look very different in a fantasy world than in the RW. In a world where Dragons exist, the modern hardened bunker would have arisen much sooner...and Dwarves would be getting REAAAALY wealthy taking strongpoint design comissions.