Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5614964" data-attributes="member: 87792">Agreed absolutely.  D&D has always criminally undervalued the shield.  And swords are pretty much ubiquitous one on one with or without shields.  On the other hand for mass combat the ubiquitous weapons have been either ranged or long sticks with sharpened bits of metal allowing much more focus fire. "Longsword", agreed.  But the staff user IIRC was not considered to be at an advantage over someone with either a shield or a two handed sword.  That extra hand makes a lot of difference unless you're going for either Spanish or Italian Rapier (and even then it's important and both were eliminated by the smallsword).  Also the staff user was at a positive disadvantage against a halberdier or billman.  From facing them axes are very much like maces.  They are specialist.  But lose in the general case.  The pollax isn't really a classic pole weapon.  It's more an iron bound half-staffed warpick (the classic problems with half-staffing just ending up with broken knuckles not happening if you're already wearing steel gauntlets).  And as such the spike comes into play far more than it does on a weapon you hold almost exclusively at one end.  Non-martial would be a better term. Or possibly even improvised.  I'm reminded of the success of the Okinawan liberations despite some of the strongest martial arts in history. There are longbows.  And there are the absurdities the English and Welsh riased it to with multiple hours of practice mandated for the peasantry.  It's defensible.  Don't forget the Unearthed Arcana Polearm Fetish.</blockquote>

Verification