Where are hte polearms?

[Hussar]

The popularity of the polearm (especially if you include the spear or pike) boils down to two reasons IMO:

1. It's fairly easy to train people to use one and they are fairly simple to make.

2. Pole arms are extremely effective at what they do. Swords, by and large, were the weapon of last resort. You pulled out your sword after your long pointy weapon broke or you were finishing someone off.

Think of it this way. If someone has a sword, would you rather have a three foot hunk of semi-sharp steel in your hand, or a ten foot pole?

 

[Umbran]

That's interesting....the guy with the polearm seemed to basically control that entire fight from start to finish. If they were real weapons, that bout would have been over 30% of the way into it, when he hit the swordsman in the "hole"...

Yes, the guy with the polearm controlled the fight. But to be honest, the swordsman does nto seem to me to be of equal skill - I can see several opportunities he was presented with repeatedly tht the failed to use. And note how much space the polearm required to keep that control. Polearms in 1-on-1 are all about positioning, distance, and timing. The are not easy to use and survive with.

In SCA terms, there were at least two bouts of friendly sparring in that first video. The guy gets up from his knees after the groin shot because the first fight is over, and they start again.

Of course, if those were real weapons, in real life or death fight, the thing was over when the swordsman went to his knees - that indicates a leg shot good enough to have disabled a leg. In SCA combat in that situation, it is considered illegal to circle around and hit the guy in the back, but in the real world, you'd do that. Or, in a melee, you'd "leg 'em and leave 'em".

And, by the way, note how long that polearm isn't. It is about a foot taller than the man, so somewhere between six and seven feet long. It is most certainly not a 10 foot long thing. At that length, while you can get the end moving daraned fast, it takes forever (and lots of muscle) to do it.

 

[Banshee16]

Yes, the guy with the polearm controlled the fight. But to be honest, the swordsman does nto seem to me to be of equal skill - I can see several opportunities he was presented with repeatedly tht the failed to use. And note how much space the polearm required to keep that control. Polearms in 1-on-1 are all about positioning, distance, and timing. The are not easy to use and survive with.

In SCA terms, there were at least two bouts of friendly sparring in that first video. The guy gets up from his knees after the groin shot because the first fight is over, and they start again.

Of course, if those were real weapons, in real life or death fight, the thing was over when the swordsman went to his knees - that indicates a leg shot good enough to have disabled a leg. In SCA combat in that situation, it is considered illegal to circle around and hit the guy in the back, but in the real world, you'd do that. Or, in a melee, you'd "leg 'em and leave 'em".

And, by the way, note how long that polearm isn't. It is about a foot taller than the man, so somewhere between six and seven feet long. It is most certainly not a 10 foot long thing. At that length, while you can get the end moving daraned fast, it takes forever (and lots of muscle) to do it.

You are correct....the swordsman didn't seem to be of equal skill. But as to the remark about using a polearm being all about positioning, I'm sure I'm not the only one on these boards with fencing training, and it's no different with a sword. The easiest way to defend yourself in fencing is to control your distance with your attacker, and simply step back away from an attack. If he can't reach you, he can't hit you. So I don't think it's unique to polearms.

Someone else in the thread commented about people with polearms using them like double-weapons, and I think when you look at it that way, many polearms (at least the ones with slashing blades, instead of piercing blades (ie. poleaxe, glaive, halberd, bec de corbin, etc.) don't need nearly as much space to use as something like a pike or spear would.

Banshee

 

[Umbran]

You are correct....the swordsman didn't seem to be of equal skill. But as to the remark about using a polearm being all about positioning, I'm sure I'm not the only one on these boards with fencing training, and it's no different with a sword. [ The easiest way to defend yourself in fencing is to control your distance with your attacker, and simply step back away from an attack. If he can't reach you, he can't hit you. So I don't think it's unique to polearms.

No, it isn't unique to polearms. It is a result of not having the shield, really. Never is positioning completley unimportant, but a person without a shield has to pay much more attention to it.

Someone else in the thread commented about people with polearms using them like double-weapons, and I think when you look at it that way, many polearms (at least the ones with slashing blades, instead of piercing blades (ie. poleaxe, glaive, halberd, bec de corbin, etc.) don't need nearly as much space to use as something like a pike or spear would.

Quote the opposite, in my experience. A thing with a slashing blade (well, polearms more chop than slash, but anyway) needs room to swing. A thing like a pike or spear merely needs to be pointed at the enemy, and moved a foot or so forward and back to thrust.

As a note, my weapon in SCA combat has an edge for chopping, and thrusting points on both ends. It takes a whole lot less space around me to thrust than to chop.

 

[Mouseferatu]

No, it isn't unique to polearms. It is a result of not having the shield, really. Never is positioning completley unimportant, but a person without a shield has to pay much more attention to it.

Yep. At the risk of derailing the thread (maybe we ought to start a new one?), I really wish the shield had a greater place in D&D. The +1 or +2 bonus to AC (sans magic, of course) has never really struck me as sufficient to represent the vital importance shields played in actual combat.

 

[Umbran]

Yep. At the risk of derailing the thread (maybe we ought to start a new one?), I really wish the shield had a greater place in D&D. The +1 or +2 bonus to AC (sans magic, of course) has never really struck me as sufficient to represent the vital importance shields played in actual combat.

I think the plusses do reflect the importance of the shield. Why? Because that guy with only the polearm can still make mincemeat out of a guy with a shield. And I've seen guys with two-weapon kill the "sword and board" man. And the guy with jnust the sword sometimes still wins, too. Ergo, it isn't all that vital. You can live without it.

The shield, bascially, allows the fighter to stand mostly still. He gets to forego much, but not all, of the positioning aspect of the fight. It is a change in style, rather than an absolute advantage. If you aren't able to be fast on your feet (because you're personally slow, or part of a wall of men so you aren't allowed to move), you want a shield. If you are okay with moving around, the shield can be as much a hindrance as a help.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think the plusses do reflect the importance of the shield. Why? Because that guy with only the polearm can still make mincemeat out of a guy with a shield. And I've seen guys with two-weapon kill the "sword and board" man. And the guy with jnust the sword sometimes still wins, too. Ergo, it isn't all that vital. You can live without it.

The shield, bascially, allows the fighter to stand mostly still. He gets to forego much, but not all, of the positioning aspect of the fight. It is a change in style, rather than an absolute advantage. If you aren't able to be fast on your feet (because you're personally slow, or part of a wall of men so you aren't allowed to move), you want a shield. If you are okay with moving around, the shield can be as much a hindrance as a help.

Interesting. You're the first person I've heard that argument from. (Not saying you're wrong, by any stretch, just that it's a new perspective.)

I guess there would be no way to model that without facing and positioning rules, though, and I think the last thing D&D needs right now is further complexity.

 

[Banshee16]

Quote the opposite, in my experience. A thing with a slashing blade (well, polearms more chop than slash, but anyway) needs room to swing. A thing like a pike or spear merely needs to be pointed at the enemy, and moved a foot or so forward and back to thrust.

As a note, my weapon in SCA combat has an edge for chopping, and thrusting points on both ends. It takes a whole lot less space around me to thrust than to chop.

I guess the makers of some of those polearms were pretty bright then....some can do bludgeoning, stabbing, *and* chopping, having all three types of pieces on their heads .

Banshee

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

With all due respect to Umbran's experience in the SCA my experience with sword & shield as well as polearme has been a little different:

When fighting with sword & shield, I would rush the polearm guys and get in close, attempting to pin their weapon. Most polearm fighters can't fight in close and tend to run away with me swinging at them. Result = usually a quick victory for myself.

When fighting with polearm vs. sword & shield I would attempt to thrust them (face thurst is ideal) and if legal would attempt a trip. If my reach attack failed, then I would close up my grip on the polearm and lure the S&S guy into close range. Most S&S fighters think that a polearm fighter can't fight in close (see above). However in my case, I most certainly do know how to fight. Right at the moment when they drop their shield to swing at me, I pivot my right hip and slam the polearm into their head. In most cases, that stops them dead in their tracks.

However, versus Florentine (2 sword) it's quite the challenge.

Also higher level fighters are very difficult to fight (surprised?) not so much for their skill but for their speed. I will never forget a fight with Master Einarr Skullcrusher. As I began a swing at him, his sword leapt from his shoulder, smacked my helm, and came back to his shoulder by the time I was halfway through my swing! This is why I houserule that BAB adds to Initiative.

Oh and I love counting coup with the polearm. With a sword & shield guy, I can keep him at bay for a very, very long time. Just lots of litle love taps on his head, shoulder, legs, etc.

In terms of the video, in the first bout both fighters were lower level. The S&S guy lower level than the polearm guy (can't believe his pollarm was legal) but even so the polearm fighter made a lot of mistakes.

The second video's fighters were swinging way too slow to view it as a real fight.

Bottom line is that I believe that both polearms and shields are undervalued in 3.5.

 

[Andor]

I guess the makers of some of those polearms were pretty bright then....some can do bludgeoning, stabbing, *and* chopping, having all three types of pieces on their heads .

Banshee

Dang, now I want to make up a pole arm with all three damage types. Lesse... Axe blade for slashing, Hammer head behind it for bludgeoning, and a spear point on the end... Wait, that's a halberd basically. *Looks* Well a halberd is piercing and slashing already, so changing the backspike to a hammer and giving it all three damages shouldn't be a big deal. If the GM gripes make it into an exotic weapon, call it a Dwarven Can-Opener and maybe bump up the crit multiplier. Now make the axe cold iron, the spearpoint adamantine, and the hammer silver and I'm set. Bring on the DR baby!