Bec de Corbin and other Blunt Polearms

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

After a certain degree of struggle/negotiation my DM and I have agree to try and come up with some blunt pole-arms.

Here's the baseline he has proposed:

Lucerne Hammer (Martial)(2 handed)(Hammer and Pole-arm)
+2 Attack 1d6 Damage, Reach and High Crit

Bec De Corbin (Martial)(2 Handed)(Hammer and Pole-Arm)
+2 Attack 1d8 Damage, Reach

He has also said that if I would care to make one of them a superior weapon I could up the damage die by one point.

These seem a little underpowered to me. The lowest damage polearm so far is the Glaive with 2d4. The only superior polearm is d10 but it also has +3 to attack.

Thoughts?

 

[Mythlore]

They seem pretty baseline for military weapons.

With Superior, meaning you have to take a feat for one of them, you gain the ability to increase the proficiency bonus, or as suggested, up the die size. I'd go for the high crit, superior, 1d8, +3 one. Alternatively, try brutal 1.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I don't know.

The d6 seems really low even with high crit.

My temptation would be to recommend 1d8 with high crit for the military.

And d10 with +3 for the superior and no properties beyond reach.

 

[Pickles JG]

I statted out for 4e all of the 1e polearms in a thread I just effectively bumped.

Your numbers are of course right on the curve though I went with Brutal 2 for the Bec de Corbin as +3 is the blades' schtick (mostly). (So it's a long Craghammer).

I used a lot of multiple key words - mostly adding Spear to the other ones as that seems to be the idea behind a lot of the weapons. As in D&D the historical soldiers seemed to have ended up going for the big damage die.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I saw and commented in that thread.

Regarding what you say here, though, I don't know if spear is all that great an additional weapon group to polearm.

Clearly there are spears that are also polearms, but for the purposes of most feats and enchantments the two terms have a lot of overlap.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, there are some pole arms that might be legitimately considered to be functionally spears. However all but a very few styles of pole arms were almost invariably topped with a spear-like point (kind of an obvious enhancement). If having a spear point or spike is the criteria for being considered a spear, then the VAST majority of all pole weapons, including virtually all halberds would meet that criteria.

So one would have to say that to qualify as a spear a polarm really should be mostly a spear. In which case one asks "is it really a pole arm?". Well, perhaps a few examples exist that might warrant that, but it really should be left as a question of game mechanics.

The other real question I have is "is there really a need for 2 variations of the hammer on a long stick?" In practical terms there is little difference and it is doubtful if in contemporary use two forms were even distinguished. In fact the term "Lucerne Hammer" is itself a 19th century invention. A wide variety of very similar heads were used, all consist of a hammer side, a spike side, and a point.

Given that the game seems to have chosen to model pole arms as a few very basic weapons I kind of think one Pole Hammer would be the best way to go. So far all fairly standard pole arms are grouped under Military Melee weapons. I would tend to put a Pole Hammer in the same category, lest it simply become the default best choice.

Pole Hammer Military Melee +2 2d4 Polearm, Hammer Reach

Puts it squarely in the same category with glaive, except you get to use it with hammer stuff. That SHOULD make it useful for certain characters but not out of line I would think.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I think the only purpose to having two is to have a superior option you can spend a feat on if you so desire.