Polearms Up Close and Personal???

[Mouseferatu]

I'm also curious about the lucerne hammer. It's got reach as well, but all of the historical examples I've seen were the length of a halberd or shorter, and the halberd doesn't have reach.

Here's a little secret; don't tell Erik I told you this.

The lucerne hammer didn't have reach in my original draft. In my draft, the lucerne hammer and the bec-de-corbin were largely identical, except the bec had reach and the lucerne hammer did not. Based on my viewing of historical examples of both weapons, that seemed to make the most sense as a means of handling them.

Paizo saw fit to alter that in editing. I can't speak to why, and I'm not going to claim that my way is "better" or "worse" than the final product. Just pointing out what I'd had in mind with those weapons.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Heh. I just realized, these replies must look awfully defensive.

"What about X?"

"Not my fault!"

"What about Y?"

"Also not my fault!"



Didn't mean to come across that way. And I'm glad you enjoyed the article, despite any flaws--mine or others'--you might have found in it.

 

[baeleg]

I didn't take it that way, so no worries.

I was just curious. Just because I haven't seen long hammers doesn't mean they don't exist, after all. I would have though that generally impractical, as most weapons intended to be swung are a certain length or less, with longer weapons being thrusting weapons. Sounds like my take on it is generally correct though.

I've got a char that's about to gain martial weapon prof and I was going to go with lucerne hammer, since he's going to be a knight, and the hammer offers good flavor with good stats. I may mention this to the DM and see if he'd rather take away the reach and perhaps let it be set against a charge instead.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I was just curious. Just because I haven't seen long hammers doesn't mean they don't exist, after all. I would have though that generally impractical, as most weapons intended to be swung are a certain length or less, with longer weapons being thrusting weapons. Sounds like my take on it is generally correct though.

I've always been curious about that myself, and I assume it's why so many pole-arms have spear-tips on top, even if it's not the primary weapon.

That said, I have seen fighters using spears/pole-arms to slash with. So long as they have the room to do it, they can get some devastating force behind it.

I think a house rule stating that you cannot use a bludgeoning or slashing pole-arm unless you have at least five feet of clearance on either side wouldn't be inappropriate--except that it might discourage people from using pole-arms, and they're the red-headed stepchild of 3E as it is. That's why I proposed the article in the first place.

 

[baeleg]

Oh, I didn't mean they aren't capable of being swung. Look at the halberd or the lochaber axe. Typically around 8 ft long in total, and obviously intended to be swung.

The question here is "should they have reach?". In game terms, it isn't really well defined how long something has to be to have reach. I figure it usually has to be 12 ft or longer, and that's a length I haven't seen in any weapons obviously designed to be swung. Not an uncommon length for spears though.

Now, maybe swinging a 12 ft spear isn't that hard either, and can be quite effective. I don't know. I'm just making guesses based off of weapons I've seen, and I obviously haven't seen all of the weapons they used, or that many demonstrations of their effectiveness.

 

[Sgain]

From personal experience you don't require 5' of swing room to slash effectively with a bladed pole weapon. About 1' will do it. Remember this isn't a baseball bat thats being swung at a fast moving ball, its a blade at the end of a large fulcrum. By using the back arm of the swing you can easily and effectively generate a lot of power, more than enough to cut through armor.

I've knocked guys over with about a foot of 'swing' by using my body wieght as leverage.

As to thrusting tips on poles, its easy to see why most pole-arms have them, they are very useful without much effort. You can simply place and push with your body if you want and it will penetrate. Or you can 'rock' your arms back and forth for a nasty punch type of thrust. I prefer the 'slash and bang' where I slash at an opponents head (he blocks it) and I pull back using the momentum from the swing to power a thrust. It's a really quick way to score a hit.

Oh...I've been fighting primarily with polearms in the SCA for over 20 years (thats how I know about hitting folks with em). I've used 6' long glaves in castle battles (narrow confined spaces) to great effect (much better than using a sword that has to be swung to gain power). Remember that leverage can create a lot of power in a small swing and body wieght applied to the weapon is also very effictive.

Oh..and lucern hammers and bec's, they are pretty nasty in a close in fight (two handed swinging), but even more useful when used in concert to someone who is pulling down an opponents shield for the hammer guy. They don't require a huge amount of power behind them due to their sharp points and weight behind the heads. I believe they saw a lot of action at the Battle of Visby, as dozens of the remains there showed a single square edged puncture in them (usually the skulls but also on some rib cages and femurs). An old buddy of mine was into archelogy and had these very interesting photos of the digs there.

As to shortening up on a pole to use in close; it is easy to do, to a certain pole length (say about 2' longer than the users hieght) after that the pole end catches on the ground and is much less effective when swung (remember its dragging around) thats why I use a 6' pole most of the time, its got reach (about 8' when thrust) and I can easily shorten it up to fight and defend against close in attackers.

cya