How important are a variety of polearms in a fantasy game?

[scarmiglionne4]

How important are a variety of polearms in a fantasy game? Is the 1e Unearthed Arcana set too many? Would anyone miss them if there were very few?

[Rhynn]

Depends on the system, but on its own, not at all important.

In most games, "polearm" is sufficient.

In a more detailed system, you can pretty much get by with spear, longer spear, maybe even longer spear (pike), stabby-cutty-hooky polearm (covers the great majority), bardiche/Dane axe, and halberd/pollaxe/pollhammer (covers bec-de-corbin and lucerne hammer).

The Riddle of Steel has a large variety because the combat system actually handles things like hooking, penetrating armor, weapon length, differences of thrusting and swinging, differences of puncturing and cutting, etc. AD&D 1E kinda-justifies them by having the weapon vs. armor table, but not really. AD&D 2E has no damn excuse for having 18, when it really only has 4: piercing, slashing, piercing-slashing, and piercing-bludgeoning. (Also, how is it that glaives, guisarmes, and voulges are slashing only, but glaive-guisarmes and guisarme-voulge are piercing-slashing!?) Giving the weapons different damage ratings for no reason isn't really enough to justify their existence, especially when some are simply superior (glaive-guisarme, halberd, and spetum are the only ones you should ever use, bec-de-corbin if you need P/B).

Edit: Even TROS only has 14: kern axe, spart axe/bardiche, pollhammer/pollaxe, 5 spears (by length, counterweighted, hewing) and 2 lances (by length), bill, goedendag, halberd, partisan. These differ from each other more significantly than AD&D 2E's.

[BWR]

Flavor is its own excuse. If you had a small set of stats for the major types with an archetypical weapon name for each, then a list variants for each, it would fine.

[Rhynn]

Flavor is its own excuse. If you had a small set of stats for the major types with an archetypical weapon name for each, then a list variants for each, it would fine.

I'm not sure I'd call the AD&D approach "flavorful" (what's the flavor difference of a voulge and a glaive and a guisarme anyway?), but that'd work too, sure. TROS sort of does that anyway - a voulge is a subtype of halberd, etc.

I guess the AD&D 2E types could be condensed as...

Pike (Piercing only), including awl pike, partisan, ranseur, spetum, and military fork.
Glaive (Slashing only), including bardiche, guisarme, and voulge.
Bill-hook (Piercing/Slashing), including bill-guisarme, fauchard, fauchard-fork, glaive-guisarme, guisarme-voulge, halberd, and hook-fauchard.
Pollaxe (Piercing/Bludgeoning), including pollhammer, bec de corbin, and lucerne hammer.

Then give the slashing-only weapons double damage against large charging creatures, the piercing-only weapons the ability to be set against charges for double damage, and the combination arms get nothing (their advantage is two damage types in one, which can be a big help if using armor vs. weapon type). Everything gets 2d4/2d6 damage, Large size, Speed 9, and weight 10 lbs.

I might actually use this...

[Jay R]

Gary Gygax really liked miniatures with pole-arms. That's the reasons that the D&D pole-arm list includes everything from spear to glaive-guisarme-glaive-glaive-spam-eggs-sausage-and-glaive.

[Joe the Rat]

Hook/Fork features should be noted as well - the whole pulling riders thing. If you wanted to keep it simple, I'd tag it as a feature of Rhynn's "bill-hook" class. (slash get better crits, spears set for charge, s/p trip/dismount).

I've done a little weapon work for Basic Fantasy Roleplaying Game, and simply took the approach of "Polearm: Large weapon, 1d10, can have the following features/attack types..."

If you want to balance these a bit, and add cost and weight for each feature the weapon has (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning, hook/trip/dismount, reach).

[Rhynn]

"Glaive, glaive, glaive, glaive, glaive, glaive, glaive, glaive, lovely glaaaaive..."
"SHUUT UUUUUUUP!"

Or how about a nice glaive (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Glaives_by_Wendelin_Boeheim.jpg/300px-Glaives_by_Wendelin_Boeheim.jpg)-guisame-glaive (http://mimg.ugo.com/200711/23249/the-glaive.jpg) ?


Hook/Fork features should be noted as well - the whole pulling riders thing. If you wanted to keep it simple, I'd tag it as a feature of Rhynn's "bill-hook" class. (slash get better crits, spears set for charge, s/p trip/dismount).

Not in AD&D, they shouldn't. (Unless, maybe, you use Combat & Tactics. Blech!)

Weirdly enough, D&D 3.X could actually differentiate polearms more (19-20/x2 vs. 20/x3, tripping, bonuses to disarm and trip, reach or no reach, etc.), but has far fewer of them.

[BWR]

There was a Dragon magazine issue that introduced a whole host more of them. It got to the point where many shared stats.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I dunno about you, but I always carry five different varieties of polearms on my person. So the real question is, just how authentic do you want to be? :smalltongue:

[neonchameleon]

How important are a variety of polearms in a fantasy game? Is the 1e Unearthed Arcana set too many? Would anyone miss them if there were very few?

They seemed quite common in fantasy heartbreakers in the 2e period. But 13th age stats its weapons by the user and you don't notice anything missing. It's a Gygaxian enthusiasm, nothing more.

[Greylond]

IMO, You can never have too many different types of weapons, especially Polearms... :)

Of course you have to have a Game System that supports all the different things that can be done with one... ;)

[satorian]

I don't see why having a bunch of redundant weapons is a problem, especially in games where weapon realism is already tossed out the window for flavor (mutli-headed flail, monomolecular whip) or gamist reasons (not being able to use a polearm at short range). Besides, as a kid I really enjoyed looking at pictures and descriptions of all these neat quasi-historical polearms with their funny names, even if we rarely used any of them in-game.

If you feel the need to change things, go on with your bad self. I just don't think it is really necessary for gameplay.

Are all the different polearms necessary? No. Are they enjoyable and neato to some players? Yep.

[The Glyphstone]

Because no one has linked it yet, for some reason. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0136.html)

[Joe the Rat]

Not in AD&D, they shouldn't. (Unless, maybe, you use Combat & Tactics. Blech!)I figured since we were talking fantasy in general... Though really, that's something of an oversight, seeing as that one of the points of the fork and bill types was to unhorse cavalry and bash/slice/skewer them. 1e days, there should have been three different published rules on this!


Because no one has linked it yet, for some reason. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0136.html)Does that mean I can make my partisan double-weapon joke now?

[yougi]

That's the reasons that the D&D pole-arm list includes everything from spear to glaive-guisarme-glaive-glaive-spam-eggs-sausage-and-glaive.

Looooove this.


In the RPG I'm designing, there are 3: shortspears (which I'm not even sure are actually polearms), pikes and halberds. So far, no complaints.

[Jay R]

In the RPG I'm designing, there are 3: shortspears (which I'm not even sure are actually polearms), pikes and halberds. So far, no complaints.

1. Shortspears are poles.
2. Shortspears are arms.

What other requirement do you think there is?

[satorian]

Looooove this.


In the RPG I'm designing, there are 3: shortspears (which I'm not even sure are actually polearms), pikes and halberds. So far, no complaints.

No Mancatcher? I loved the Mancatcher. Not to be confused with the Mancatheter.

[Knaight]

It really depends on the game in question - and there are a few obvious questions you can ask.
1) What is the game about? If it is about political machinations, or courtly romance, or a tragedy about peasants dealing with famine, or any number of other things where combat is a side note you probably don't need lots of polearms. If it is a military campaign where the PCs are officers in a setting where polearm blocks are the typical unit of battle? Suddenly polearms are a bit more relevant.

2) What sort of setting does the game have? If it's based on Arthurian myths with a tenative connection to reality at best, you're going to need a lance, a spear, and probably nothing else. If it's a wuxia styled game based on several different periods of Chinese history, you might well need more. If the entire setting is a peasant village, some fields, and a distinct lack of food crops you really don't need the details all that much.

3) How rules heavy is the game? If it is some rules minimalist game with a whole ten pages, there's no need to devote one of them to having a wide variety of polearms. If it's heavier than Rolemaster and has 300 page rulebooks with dry titles like "Cable Law" on different types of rope*, there had better be a decent variety.

*I'm not entirely sure this is heavier than Rolemaster.

[Yora]

I use small spears, big spears, halberds, and glaives. That's enough and covers pretty much anything you'll ever need.

[Greylond]

IMO this shows one of the problems with RPGs. Many times game designers and Players have a tendency always assume that every nation/culture is going to use the best weapon of its type. If you take a look at Earth cultures you'll see that the weapon of choice for a culture/nation wasn't about what weapon was actually best but what weapon fit the style of the culture and enemies that they faced. Look at how many different sword type weapons existed at pretty much the same time.

As far as the different pole arms, many of them were attempts to increase the effectiveness of their troops against whatever traditional enemy they typically faced.

For example, the Swiss became famous for their Pikes but not many other cultures suddenly started using them once the Swiss demonstrated how effective they were against Cavalry.

So, IMO, having only 2 or 3 Polearms in a game or game world makes all the different cultures very bland, and generic without much to differentiate them as far as military technology.

[Rhynn]

IMO this shows one of the problems with RPGs. Many times game designers and Players have a tendency always assume that every nation/culture is going to use the best weapon of its type. If you take a look at Earth cultures you'll see that the weapon of choice for a culture/nation wasn't about what weapon was actually best but what weapon fit the style of the culture and enemies that they faced. Look at how many different sword type weapons existed at pretty much the same time.

I'd phrase this differently: there is no "best weapon," there's only "the best weapon for the job." Cultures were generally pretty good about developing the best weapon for what they needed to do, given their resources - since it was literally a matter of life and death.


For example, the Swiss became famous for their Pikes but not many other cultures suddenly started using them once the Swiss demonstrated how effective they were against Cavalry.

Uh, well, depends on what you mean by "cultures." Pikes became the primary infantry weapon in Europe for a few centuries, basically dominating the late Renaissance and then losing ground to firearms over the 17th century.

The Swiss actually were explicitly imitated; the famous German (and Swiss) landsknecht mercenaries basically took their cue from Swiss troops.

Besides, those 18 types of polearms in AD&D? All European, and many of them coexistent. A lot of them, in fact, are functionally identical, and are just different names for the same basic thing. A military billhook and a guisarme can look just about identical.

[Greylond]

My point is that I'd rather have a variety than have a boring game world where all nations/races use the same 3 or 4 weapons. Just my preference, others like generic, but I don't. :)

[Eldan]

That entirely depends. There's two questions here, I suppose.

One is the fluff. If your player wants a tempered, reverse-billhooked guisarme-glave with a widdershins-corkscrew doublepoint, let him have it. It may not do anything to the rules, but let him have it.

The other question is the rules. I've seen games where it made no difference at all what weapon you carried. There's probably games with just the categories "armed" and "unarmed". There's probably games where there's about a dozen weapon parameters to keep track off.

In some of those games, that up there might just be a "polearm", or a "heavy weapon". In others, it might make a huge differnence, and add +1 to reach, +1 to speed, +3 to parry, the [versatile] tag and high quality. Who knows.

[Jay R]

The problem with the original question is that we have no idea what "important" means here. I have never played a game in which somebody said, "Man, this game really needs a falx."

On the other hand, I go down the list of available weapons looking for something fun.

How important are they? Not at all important. We could play a perfectly fun game with no Lochaber axe, goblins, or magic books. Each bit of detail just adds new ways to have fun.

[Knaight]

My point is that I'd rather have a variety than have a boring game world where all nations/races use the same 3 or 4 weapons. Just my preference, others like generic, but I don't. :)

The idea has never been that there are a total of 3 or 4 weapons, but that mechanical modeling covers categories broad enough that 3 or 4 is sufficient. If combat is far from the focus of the game there aren't necessarily even mechanics for how one is armed, and it could be entirely description based. This doesn't mean that the same description is going to be used for every single polearm ever held by anyone.

[satorian]

Well, yeah, a published game could say "the halberd class covers weapons of a similar type, all of which are statistically similar, but may look quite different from one another. Cultures, races, time in history, and geographic region all play a part is defining what weapons will look like. Players and DMs are encouraged to describe what makes a particular weapon unique, and even to name it." That would be fine. It works, it allows freedom, and it is simple. All well and good.

Still, for myself, I'd rather have a page or two of pretty pictures of weird weapons taken from real human history, each with its own ridiculous name. That way I don't have to go look it up in my local library. You don't like that, um, OK. Skip those pages, maybe? I fail to see why anyone would want less neat stuff in their game, especially when said neat stuff certainly doesn't hurt anyone. (OOC, at least ;))

[Greylond]

Exactly! More options that are well written are always better.

[neonchameleon]

Exactly! More options that are well written are always better.

Of course one of the arts of writing good options is not making things fiddly and distracting people from what the game is actually about while overwhelming them with irrelevant detail.

[satorian]

Of course one of the arts of writing good options is not making things fiddly and distracting people from what the game is actually about while overwhelming them with irrelevant detail.

Ah, but "what the game is actually about" and "irrelevant detail" mean different things to different people.

As a kid, I got into roleplaying in large part because of all the little trivia things I learned from reading Gygax's writing. I loved reading about all these neat kinds of armor and weapons and about why the wizard who invented the spell needed to do so. I loved the little contradictions that I felt I was perspicacious to discover. A seamless, dry rulebook would not have drawn me in the way those old flawed books did. There are intangibles in his hobby, and those fiddly bits are among them.

[Greylond]

Of course one of the arts of writing good options is not making things fiddly and distracting people from what the game is actually about while overwhelming them with irrelevant detail.

And yet a Good writer/Game Designer can do it and still have an award winning game. Case in point, HackMaster 4th Edition which won "Best Game of the Year" in 2001. ;)

[neonchameleon]

And yet a Good writer/Game Designer can do it and still have an award winning game. Case in point, HackMaster 4th Edition which won "Best Game of the Year" in 2001. ;)

Hackmaster 4th was, of course, a parody of AD&D. That said, a good writer can break any guideline. And then there are the lists of stuff in GURPS.

[Greylond]

Parody or not, it is still an awesome game system with lots of options. :)

[Jay R]

I've never needed more than one kind of pole-arm in a game.

Sometimes I've needed a spear. Sometimes a pike. I've used a glaive. I've had a halberd. I've used a couple of others.

A variety isn't needed for any given game. But a wide choice is very nice, so I can use the exact one I want this game.

[Blackmoor]

Bring voulge-guisarmes back to D&D!

[Greylond]

Bring voulge-guisarmes back to D&D!

Nah, no need, just play the new HackMaster... :)

[Toofey]

I think the early versions of D&D had a lot of pole arms because Gary liked to draw them.

[Greylond]

Gary wasn't an artist... ;)

[SiuiS]

Or how about a nice glaive (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Glaives_by_Wendelin_Boeheim.jpg/300px-Glaives_by_Wendelin_Boeheim.jpg)-guisame-glaive (http://mimg.ugo.com/200711/23249/the-glaive.jpg) ?

I used one of those once! I had a player join up who gave everyone heck over how they pronounced things, and mine was glaive. So to be a jerk, I bought a new glaive, and insisted on my awesome glaive being awesome, and using the name whenever I could.

And then I whip it out, and it's a magic ninja star (same stats and reach as the glaive, just weird fluff/description) from a forgotten kingdom.
Pity that game crashed.


They seemed quite common in fantasy heartbreakers in the 2e period. But 13th age stats its weapons by the user and you don't notice anything missing. It's a Gygaxian enthusiasm, nothing more.

I see this term but I do not grok. Heartbreaker?


No Mancatcher? I loved the Mancatcher. Not to be confused with the Mancatheter.

The mancatheter was the more feared of the two, which is probably why it was shunned, so.

[Rhynn]

I see this term but I do not grok. Heartbreaker?

"Fantasy heartbreaker" refers to indie/fan/self-"published" fantasy RPGs made with the wonderfully exuberant philosophy of "I love D&D but it could be better!" (still the standard, pretty much; The Forge was full of threads that were exactly that) and a lot of amateurism.

This article (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/) might give you a pretty good idea.

[Katasi]

That entirely depends. There's two questions here, I suppose.

One is the fluff. If your player wants a tempered, reverse-billhooked guisarme-glave with a widdershins-corkscrew doublepoint

I don't know what this is, but I suspect if a guy in armor came at me with it I suspect I'd run. That goes double if an angry woman came at me.... widdershins-corkscrew doublepoint sounds like something you could do very BAD things with.



In others, it might make a huge differnence, and add +1 to reach, +1 to speed, +3 to parry, the [versatile] tag and high quality. Who knows.

So... that'd be GURPS then.



The problem with the original question is that we have no idea what "important" means here. I have never played a game in which somebody said, "Man, this game really needs a falx."

On the other hand, I go down the list of available weapons looking for something fun.

How important are they? Not at all important. We could play a perfectly fun game with no Lochaber axe, goblins, or magic books. Each bit of detail just adds new ways to have fun.

I may be gaming wrong but I suddenly had an intense urge to say that the next time I'm gaming.

[Rhynn]

So... that'd be GURPS then.

Actually, GURPS only knows the Glaive, Naginata, Halberd, and Poleaxe... glaive's combat stats, for instance, are Damage sw+3 cut Reach 2, 3* Parry 0U or Damage thr+3 imp Reach 1-3* Parry 0U (meaning it takes an action to ready it after parrying because it gets unbalanced).

Now, The Riddle of Steel has somewhat more complicated stats, with weapons having a Defense TN (Target Number), Attack TNs for different modes, and often bonuses against certain types of armor ("+1 to damage vs. plate" etc.). Still not actually that complicated, even compared to D&D... and certainly not if compared to AD&D 1E.

[Jay R]

I may be gaming wrong but I suddenly had an intense urge to say that the next time I'm gaming.

Let us know what happens.

(While I haven't used all the pole arms, I once had a C&S character with a boomerang, and my current AD&D player has a slingshot.)

[SiuiS]

you know, looking it up on the googles, I have actually used a falx on three separate occasions. And a falcatta, some khopeshes modified to not suck, and a handful of exotic knives like a scramasax because I can convince DMs of katana level shenanigans if they ever look up damascus steel.

[Jay R]

you know, looking it up on the googles, I have actually used a falx on three separate occasions. And a falcatta, some khopeshes modified to not suck, and a handful of exotic knives like a scramasax because I can convince DMs of katana level shenanigans if they ever look up damascus steel.

I have used similar weapons, but never a Thracian falx.

(And I don't know if I've ever had a DM who didn't know what Damascus steel is - certainly not in the last three decades.)

[Eldan]

I don't know what this is, but I suspect if a guy in armor came at me with it I suspect I'd run. That goes double if an angry woman came at me.... widdershins-corkscrew doublepoint sounds like something you could do very BAD things with.

Ist made up to sound complicated and have a lot of weapony adjectives. I don't have the slightest idea about polearms. It was just to illustrate a Point. Perhaps there's a game out there where it matters in which direction your doublepoint rotates. In all other games, it's fluff.

[Jay R]

Ist made up to sound complicated and have a lot of weapony adjectives. I don't have the slightest idea about polearms. It was just to illustrate a Point. Perhaps there's a game out there where it matters in which direction your doublepoint rotates. In all other games, it's fluff.

It still comes back to the fact that Gygax was a miniatures gamer who liked miniatures that looked different, and so he researched a bunch of different pole arms.

He had columns about the use of various pole arms in Chainmail in both the first and second issues of The Strategic Review.

I think he just liked the toys.

[Knaight]

Still, for myself, I'd rather have a page or two of pretty pictures of weird weapons taken from real human history, each with its own ridiculous name. That way I don't have to go look it up in my local library. You don't like that, um, OK. Skip those pages, maybe? I fail to see why anyone would want less neat stuff in their game, especially when said neat stuff certainly doesn't hurt anyone. (OOC, at least ;))

Page space is a limited resource to some extent, and sometimes a few pages of weapon pictures is a waste of resources. Other times spending only fifteen pages on weapon pictures is an example of not going far enough, it really depends on the game.