PDA

View Full Version : Short Haft Style - attacking inside your reach [3.5 House Rule & Feats]



Altair_the_Vexed
2010-04-27, 05:58 AM
House rule
Reach weapons may be used to attack opponents in adjacent squares, but at a penalty.
During a round when you attack with a reach weapon at its full reach, you may not also target adjacent opponents, nor can you attack opponents at the full reach of the weapon if you have attacked adjacent opponents with it on your turn.
Attacks on opponents inside your weapon's reach are at -4. You do not gain the benefit of your weapon being two-handed - that is, your damage modifier from a high strength score is not multiplied, nor is any power attack bonus multiplied.

New Feats:

Short haft style
Requirements: BAB 1+
Benefit: You may switch between fighting opponents at full reach and adjacent opponents with your selected weapon during the same round. You negate the -4 penalty for using your reach weapon against adjacent foes.
Normal: You may not attack opponents at reach and adjacent with a reach weapon in the same round. You take a -4 penalty to attack adjacent targets.
Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Improved short haft style
Requirements: BAB 4+, short haft style
Benefit: You may add your strength modifier and power attack damage bonus as normal to attacks against adjacent opponents.
Normal: You may not add the two-handed bonus to damage against adjacent opponents when using a reach weapon.
Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Here are the original versions that I posted of these feats, for reference:

Short haft style
Requirements: BAB 1+, Weapon focus with the selected weapon
Benefit: You may switch between fighting opponents at full reach and adjacent opponents with your selected weapon during the same round.
Normal: you may not attack opponents at reach and adjacent with a reach weapon in the same round.
Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats. You may take this feat multiple times - its effects apply to different weapons.

Improved short haft style
Requirements: BAB 4+, Short haft style with selected weapon
Benefit: You negate the penalty for fighting adjacent opponents with a reach weapon.
Normal: you attack adjacent opponents with a reach weapon at -4.
Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats. You may take this feat multiple times - its effects apply to different weapons.

Greater short haft style
Requirements: BAB 8+, improved short haft style with selected weapon
Benefit: You may add your strength modifier and power attack damage bonus as normal to attacks against adjacent opponents.
Normal: you may not add the two-handed bonus to damage against adjacent opponents when using a reach weapon.
Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats. You may take this feat multiple times - its effects apply to different weapons.

...

I came up with these based on what some friends who train in various weapon fighting styles have said about long hafted weapons.

Do you think they're balanced? Should I roll the feats into two or even into one? Is the concept fundamentally flawed?

PEACH!

Innis Cabal
2010-04-27, 06:05 AM
There's already a feat to attack with pole arms and reach weapons at close range. Oddly enough called Short Hafted. Its in Dragon Compendium. It does pretty much exactly what your feat does.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-04-27, 06:59 AM
There's already a feat to attack with pole arms and reach weapons at close range. Oddly enough called Short Hafted. Its in Dragon Compendium. It does pretty much exactly what your feat does.

Thanks! I tend to run off SRD, homebrew and house rules, so I miss things like this.

But I dare say that it doesn't create a house rule that allows everyone to fight inside their reach...
So - how does the house rule stand up?

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-27, 11:53 AM
Its actually in the PHBII,
But basically as a swift action you can adjust the stance on your polearm to strike adjacent foes while losing the reach and its another swift action to chance back.

Mongoose87
2010-04-27, 12:02 PM
Its actually in the PHBII,
But basically as a swift action you can adjust the stance on your polearm to strike adjacent foes while losing the reach and its another swift action to chance back.

There's another one, in Dragon, that lets you switch back and forth as you please, but you take penalties.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-04-27, 01:00 PM
Okay, okay - so other, non-SRD, sources have done this already...

It does seem that the two cited versions differ, though. And neither appears to address the (quite reasonable, in my opinion) idea of letting everyone short haft their reach weapon, with penalties.

I mean, do you really need a feat to hold a weapon - a weapon that you're proficient with - closer to the business end, and do damage to your enemies?
What I've tried to do is model the drawbacks that I understand to come with the untrained short haft style, and then make feats that overcome those issues.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-27, 04:10 PM
Okay, okay - so other, non-SRD, sources have done this already...

It does seem that the two cited versions differ, though. And neither appears to address the (quite reasonable, in my opinion) idea of letting everyone short haft their reach weapon, with penalties.

I mean, do you really need a feat to hold a weapon - a weapon that you're proficient with - closer to the business end, and do damage to your enemies?
What I've tried to do is model the drawbacks that I understand to come with the untrained short haft style, and then make feats that overcome those issues.

Considering how those weapons were designed to be used yes, a longsword was not an effective weapon if the enemy was three inches from you.
Of course in D&D combat is done in handy 5ft squares a few different RPG systems give all weapons a reach rating.
With a pole arms the problem is exaggerated even further, that extra-haft is part of the weapons balance not just to give it that extra reach, if one was to short haft it severely effect both your to hit and damage. Your swings are limited due to the haft sticking out behind you and the back end may hit things you didn't intend. You'd be better off simply smacking them with the haft then trying to bring the pointy end to bear at close range.

The point of a polearm was to keep the enemy at bay, you either kill them before they got close or backed up as they got closer. You simply wouldn't be trained to fight short hafted as the polearm was a weapon of the open battle field where you'd have room to maneuver or a row of pikemen behind you. When pikemen and the like entered close combat they discarded the polearm and used a sword.

Knaight
2010-04-27, 05:13 PM
Yes, but pikes are an extreme example. After all these things can reach from 1 square to another square 5 feet away. Two people who take up absolutely no space and stand dead center are 10 feet away, assuming people actually take up space and fight eachother (thus both moving closer) 6-8 feet is more reasonable. Assuming a polearm held on one end, as they are meant to be, an 8 foot spear can do this easily (and get over 10 feet on a lunge). And an 8 foot spear can certainly be used fairly effectively 5 feet away, and somewhat effectively 4 feet away, though not nearly as well as with the full distance.

Plus, in the real world, getting past a pole arm is actually difficult. You can't hold out for a few seconds step in, and start hacking whenever you want to, in the hands of a competent wielder getting past a spear tip is difficult. Considering how easy it is in D&D, might as well allow an attack with a penalty, after all these are not long pikes, 7-8 foot polearms are more in the ballpark than the 12 or 15 feet typical of pikes. Short hafted fighting is doable, if difficult, and pulling in quickly to force an opponent back is well within reason.

So, this means one of two things. Either require an opposed attack check to close in the first place, or allow short hafting. No feat required either, at most I would apply a -4 penalty to attacking right up close and would allow both in the same round (since that implies level 6 or higher, and these people are already ridiculously talented.), with a feat to remove or at least mitigate the penalty.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-04-28, 02:03 AM
...
With a pole arms the problem is exaggerated even further, that extra-haft is part of the weapons balance not just to give it that extra reach, if one was to short haft it severely effect both your to hit and damage. Your swings are limited due to the haft sticking out behind you and the back end may hit things you didn't intend. You'd be better off simply smacking them with the haft then trying to bring the pointy end to bear at close range.
...
Agreed, it's difficult to wield a long spear against an adjacent enemy.
This is exactly why I came up with a penalty to hit, and a nerf to damage in my house rule proposal.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-28, 11:42 PM
Remember one of the disadvantages to a reach weapon is not only being unable to hit adjacent foes but you don't threaten either which makes a big difference, allowing a penalty to hit adjacent foes would imply washing that away.

Perhaps this,
As a move action you can switch your stance to hit adjacent foe, as obviously you have to hold the weapon differently to hit someone next to you as oppose to 5ft away.

ForzaFiori
2010-04-29, 07:49 AM
Remember one of the disadvantages to a reach weapon is not only being unable to hit adjacent foes but you don't threaten either which makes a big difference, allowing a penalty to hit adjacent foes would imply washing that away.

Perhaps this,
As a move action you can switch your stance to hit adjacent foe, as obviously you have to hold the weapon differently to hit someone next to you as oppose to 5ft away.

I would make it a swift. It really doesn't take that much time to slide hands down a pole arm. The staffs are usually polished and oiled to prevent splinters, which makes them very smooth, so as soon as you want to move your hand, its going. We used to do similar stuff with Bo staffs in karate. Typically they'd be a 5' reach in DnD, but there were several attacks we learned where during the attack you could slide your hands, and it would allow you to thrust or even swing the staff out to 9, 10 feet, and then after the attack your hands were right back where they started. It's no so impossible as DnD wants people to think.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-29, 09:56 AM
I would make it a swift. It really doesn't take that much time to slide hands down a pole arm. The staffs are usually polished and oiled to prevent splinters, which makes them very smooth, so as soon as you want to move your hand, its going. We used to do similar stuff with Bo staffs in karate. Typically they'd be a 5' reach in DnD, but there were several attacks we learned where during the attack you could slide your hands, and it would allow you to thrust or even swing the staff out to 9, 10 feet, and then after the attack your hands were right back where they started. It's no so impossible as DnD wants people to think.

There is already a feat short hafted that makes it a swift action to change your stance. I'm trying to offer something to augment the rules already in place not override anything.

A Bō is also a hell of a lot lighter then a polearm style weapon, due to a lack of a big heavy metal end. Comparing the two is silly the style of balance and fighting between a polearm or a Bō/quarterstaff[which are basically the same weapon, the key difference being materials].
You wouldn't wield a Bō staff with both hands on one end like a sword would you? at least not very effectively.

A quarterstaff or Bō if made right is very well balanced so slide around with swift changes in grip. Its part of the style with a weapon. The hunk of wood in question is also 5ft to 6ft in length. A reach weapon is going to be a good 3ft longer and have the extra weight of a pointy end. That extra 3ft has to go somewhere if you hold the weapon more towards the blade end, the likely place would be into the ground when you raise the weapon to swing.


Using a polearm is SUPPOSED to carry a disadvantage to off set the advantage of reach. If your going to nearly negate the penalties then you should negate the advantage as well.

If you absolutely can't use a reach weapon and suffer some sort of meaningful disadvantage use the spiked chain.

Frog Dragon
2010-04-29, 10:56 AM
Using spiked gauntlets with the polearm negates this problem rather nicely and in many cases would actually be better than taking the -4 to get better damage than the gauntlet.

Knaight
2010-04-29, 06:32 PM
A quarterstaff or Bō if made right is very well balanced so slide around with swift changes in grip. Its part of the style with a weapon. The hunk of wood in question is also 5ft to 6ft in length. A reach weapon is going to be a good 3ft longer and have the extra weight of a pointy end. That extra 3ft has to go somewhere if you hold the weapon more towards the blade end, the likely place would be into the ground when you raise the weapon to swing.


A spear has a fairly light tip in most cases, and most other polearm tips are not exceptionally heavy, even halberds aren't extremely weighty. Furthermore, most polearms were 6-8 feet, with the exception of pikes, not 9, which is still more than enough. And you don't need to hold it that much further towards the blade end, a wider grip handles a decent amount. It gets in the way because you can't slash in front of you like you would with a sword, but it isn't that major, and a -4 to attack is more than enough.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-04-30, 02:00 AM
There is already a feat short hafted that makes it a swift action to change your stance. I'm trying to offer something to augment the rules already in place not override anything.


Well, I am trying to make a new rule that takes the place of / fulfils the function of any out-of-core rules.

My house rule - in the OP - is to let everyone go short hafted at a penalty, and have those penalties be bought off with feats.
I think this refelcts the relative simplicity of the action - using a long weapon short hafted is often part of the training in that weapon. The penalties are made to reflect the issues more experienced fighters have told me about using long weapons in close.
Better training in the form of feats negate these penalties.

Doc Roc
2010-04-30, 02:26 AM
I think that you will lose nothing, in actual practice, by making it:

Feat: Not Fancy
Preq: +2 BaB
Benefit: You may, with a free action, use any martial reach weapon as though it did not have reach. You may end this effect with a free action.

In most cases, this will be weaker than EWP: Spiked Chain, which is really not that broken.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-30, 12:07 PM
I don't think a penalty to hit is enough to properly reflect the difficulty of using a polearm at close range. Damage would also suffer, and your way still eliminates the reach weapon draw back of not being able to threaten adjacent foes at the same time as you threaten foes further away.

Real polearm fighters did face that problem that you couldn't hold off someone right next to you and someone at the end of the weapons reach at the same time.

I think the process of changing your grip so its no longer functions has a reach weapon makes more sense.


I think that you will lose nothing, in actual practice, by making it:

Feat: Not Fancy
Preq: +2 BaB
Benefit: You may, with a free action, use any martial reach weapon as though it did not have reach. You may end this effect with a free action.

In most cases, this will be weaker than EWP: Spiked Chain, which is really not that broken.

The spiked chain deals less damage and has a worse critical rate then other reach weapons. In most cases its stronger then the spiked chain.
A Guisarme would deal the same damage but have a higher critical rate.
The certain losers in that game are the users of non-reach weapons.

Mongoose87
2010-04-30, 12:23 PM
The spiked chain deals less damage and has a worse critical rate then other reach weapons. In most cases its stronger then the spiked chain.
A Guisarme would deal the same damage but have a higher critical rate.
The certain losers in that game are the users of non-reach weapons.

They're already losers, though.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-04-30, 02:33 PM
I don't think a penalty to hit is enough to properly reflect the difficulty of using a polearm at close range. Damage would also suffer, and your way still eliminates the reach weapon draw back of not being able to threaten adjacent foes at the same time as you threaten foes further away.

Real polearm fighters did face that problem that you couldn't hold off someone right next to you and someone at the end of the weapons reach at the same time.

I think the process of changing your grip so its no longer functions as a reach weapon makes more sense.

...
*Ahem*
That's what my rule does.

Reach weapons may be used to attack opponents in adjacent squares, but at a penalty.
During a round when you attack with a reach weapon at its full reach, you may not also target adjacent opponents, nor can you attack opponents at the full reach of the weapon if you have attacked adjacent opponents with it on your turn.
Attacks on opponents inside your weapon's reach are at -4. You do not gain the benefit of your weapon being two-handed - that is, your damage modifier from a high strength score is not multiplied, nor is any power attack bonus multiplied.
And there's a damage penalty right there, too, in that you can't add your extra bonuses for two-handedness.

Doc Roc
2010-04-30, 04:23 PM
The spiked chain deals less damage and has a worse critical rate then other reach weapons. In most cases its stronger then the spiked chain.
A Guisarme would deal the same damage but have a higher critical rate.
The certain losers in that game are the users of non-reach weapons.

Actually, the spiked chain deals roughly the same damage, with slightly inferior crits, which are almost completely irrelevant from a statistical standpoint, and superior combat options. Additionally, the spiked chain acts in both modes all the time, where here you would need to take a free action to switch, which you cannot do off-turn.

I would still take EWP: Spiked chain over my option, and certainly over the others that I have seen so far.

ForzaFiori
2010-04-30, 05:42 PM
There is already a feat short hafted that makes it a swift action to change your stance. I'm trying to offer something to augment the rules already in place not override anything.
Never said you were. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't take very long to slide your hands, which is all you need to do to change your grip, on any sort of pole-arm or staff.

A Bō is also a hell of a lot lighter then a polearm style weapon, due to a lack of a big heavy metal end. Comparing the two is silly the style of balance and fighting between a polearm or a Bō/quarterstaff[which are basically the same weapon, the key difference being materials].
You wouldn't wield a Bō staff with both hands on one end like a sword would you? at least not very effectively.
Actually, wielding the Bo with both hands on one end, in a large, swinging arc, is an actual move. Not sure what its called in Okinowa, but in my dojo we always referred to it as "baseball" or "Golf" depending of if it was a high or low strike. It gives the reach of a pole-arm, though it is slightly awkward. However, it is effective. Hence the reason I firmly believe you can change a weapons reach (at least, if its a pole-arm or staff) with only a penalty to attack.

A quarterstaff or Bō if made right is very well balanced so slide around with swift changes in grip. Its part of the style with a weapon. The hunk of wood in question is also 5ft to 6ft in length. A reach weapon is going to be a good 3ft longer and have the extra weight of a pointy end. That extra 3ft has to go somewhere if you hold the weapon more towards the blade end, the likely place would be into the ground when you raise the weapon to swing.
My dojo had both a 10' and 9' bo, giving you an extra 3' to 4', a bo made entirely of iron, and a hollow steel one filled with pennies. I can do all the previously stated maneuvers with all of them, as well as with my own 6'.


Using a polearm is SUPPOSED to carry a disadvantage to off set the advantage of reach. If your going to nearly negate the penalties then you should negate the advantage as well.
I never said there wasn't a disadvantage. Using a strange grip does make it harder to attack someone. It is NOT, however, impossible, nor is it so hard that it should require a feat. It should give a -2, maybe -4 to attack.

If you absolutely can't use a reach weapon and suffer some sort of meaningful disadvantage use the spiked chain.

My answers are in bold.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-02, 03:38 PM
So my house rule of "-4 to hit, reduction in bonuses to damage" is a good idea?:smallbiggrin:

Setting aside that there may be feats already published (which, as this thread shows, are contentious and inconsistent with each other anyway), does my house rule and the accompanying feats in the OP come close to modelling the reality of short haft style?
Are the feats to buy off the penalties about right? Should there be three, or less? Should they have the previous feat as a prerequisite?

Any opinions?

Doc Roc
2010-05-02, 03:42 PM
No, it's a hugely weird nerf, why would you do that to a poor old fighter who just wants to poke people up close?
Why would I ever not just take EWP for spiked chain?
Why should I be punished for wanting to use a spear instead?

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-02, 03:48 PM
No, it's a hugely weird nerf, why would you do that to a poor old fighter who just wants to poke people up close?
Why would I ever not just take EWP for spiked chain?
Why should I be punished for wanting to use a spear instead?
It's not a nerf.
You're not being punished for using a spear.
You get to use a spear as normal, but you also get to use it against adjacent creatures with some penalties.
You can take EWP for spiked chain if you want, but if anyone with a reach weapon can switch styles to fight close or at reach, then the spiked chain is a little less awesome.

Doc Roc
2010-05-02, 04:05 PM
It's not a nerf.
You're not being punished for using a spear.
You get to use a spear as normal, but you also get to use it against adjacent creatures with some penalties.
You can take EWP for spiked chain if you want, but if anyone with a reach weapon can switch styles to fight close or at reach, then the spiked chain is a little less awesome.

Except where they're at a -4. So it's actually fantastic, because you paid a feat to suffer, where I paid one to win.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-02, 04:12 PM
Except where they're at a -4. So it's actually fantastic, because you paid a feat to suffer, where I paid one to win.

Um, no.
You don't spend a feat to have the -4 penalty.

Here's how it goes in my proposal: everyone can use a reach weapon for close up fighting, but there is a penalty there are feats to buy off the penalties
Here's how it goes with the RAW and spiked chain: no-one can use a reach weapon for close up fighting except if you spend a feat and use the spiked chain

If you're suggesting that the feats I've proposed don't go far enough to buy off the penalties, then you've not made your point very clear.

Flickerdart
2010-05-02, 04:20 PM
Purchasing gauntlets or armour spikes lets you forego the three-feat cost that you propose to do what amounts to the same thing.

Doc Roc
2010-05-02, 04:25 PM
Um, no.
You don't spend a feat to have the -4 penalty.

Here's how it goes in my proposal: everyone can use a reach weapon for close up fighting, but there is a penalty there are feats to buy off the penalties
Here's how it goes with the RAW and spiked chain: no-one can use a reach weapon for close up fighting except if you spend a feat and use the spiked chain

If you're suggesting that the feats I've proposed don't go far enough to buy off the penalties, then you've not made your point very clear.

What I am getting at is that you have these feats to buy off penalties, a chain of three. And then you have this other feat that lets you completely duck the penalties, which are very rough, and get a weapon generally thought to be superior in the process. Which do you pick?

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-02, 04:44 PM
Fair point.

Would the feats be more worthwhile if they were more general?

Say I ditched the "weapon focus with selected weapon" requirement, thus letting someone with the feat go short hafted with any reach weapon?

Or, if I leave the "select one weapon" requirement in there, to reflect specific training with a chosen weapon, should it be reduced to just one feat to buy off all the penalties?

Or maybe - I just thought of this, it may suck, feel free to say so - I make a chain of "Short haft style (selected weapon)" and a new feat, "Short haft specialist", which opens up all reach weapons, but requires you to have specialised in one first.

lesser_minion
2010-05-02, 04:57 PM
The problem is that you're basically saying that it takes four feats to master the spiked chain and six feats to master the glaive.

That is, at best, patently nonsensical. There is a reason why a glaive-glaive-guisarme-guisarme-glaive-guisarme-glaive glaive is a martial weapon while a spiked chain is exotic. It's because one worked in real life, while the other is unproven and probably not as viable as D&D thinks it is.

Feats should be pretty big, and they should either remove something that can annoy your character at any level, or they should give you something that gets better as you gain levels.

Even four feats to become a semi-capable tripper is probably too much.

On top of that, there's a not-insignificant chance that a character using a reach build has a higher dexterity than strength (since they're probably locking people down using trips).

Dingle
2010-05-03, 08:40 AM
The house rule seams reasonable enough.
The -4 is equivalent to nonproficiency or an improvised weapon.
Wielding the polearm as some kind of improvised weapon (not designed to be used like this) or not automatically proficient (you get taught to use a polearm as a reach weapon) is practically allowed in the rules (but not quite).

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-03, 01:03 PM
The house rule seams reasonable enough.
The -4 is equivalent to nonproficiency or an improvised weapon.
Wielding the polearm as some kind of improvised weapon (not designed to be used like this) or not automatically proficient (you get taught to use a polearm as a reach weapon) is practically allowed in the rules (but not quite).

That's the assumption I was starting with.

I've changed the OP to reflect some of the comments I've had so far.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-04, 04:19 AM
I've now actually managed to save the changes I made last night. :smallredface: