Four attacks with a pike

[Sniccups]

Level 20 fighters get 4 attacks per round. How would a fighter be doing that with a pike? Medieval pikes were up to 25 feet long, and in D&D they can only attack up to 10 feet away... a pike should not be able to attack something 5 feet away. It seems incredibly unrealistic to be able to attack a target 5 feet away with an 18 foot piercing weapon 4 times after moving 30 feet all in 6 seconds.

The fluff disagrees with the crunch. At least the lance has disadvantage 5 feet from the target.

Historically speaking, pikes were only used in tight formations with foot soldiers, never in what D&D calls regular combat - small, loose groups of adventurers taking on monsters.

As a Dm, should I allow multiple attacks with a pike? Should I allow pikes at all?

[Shaofoo]

Realism has no place in D&D or rather if you can allow a guy that can conjure fire from nothing then why not allow a person that has reached the pinnacle of fighting arts to be able to break mundane conceptions, I doubt your calculations have taken place with a level 20 human.

But seriously don't drag realism into your justifications, rarely ends well. I would say that you shouldn't change anything but if you are the DM then feel free to ban any weapons that you want too.

[some guy]

Even though the pike is one the heaviest weapons, I don't think the dnd pike is a historical pike.

I don't think pc's should be thought of as realistic people from lvl 6+ on, maybe even earlier (lvl 1 for casters). lvl 20 pc's are legendary superheroes.
If you want games that feel more realistic, I would advise to end campains around lvl 6 or so. Or maybe even try a different system, if it doesn't work for you.

[JackPhoenix]

Is that serious question? Maybe I've spent too much time on 4chan lately, but it seems like a weak troll attempt to me. Do you have problem with wizards shooting fire from their hands, dragons and monsters existing, giants not collapsing under their own weigth, anachronistic equipment lists or tons of other stuff?

D&D is not realistic, it doesn't try to. It's a fantasy game created for fun, not to simulate real world. Level 20 characters are demigods who can change reality with few word and a gesture, regularly do the nearly impossible, call upon the personal help from their god or shoot and load heavy crossbow 9 times in 6 seconds (Hasted level 20 fighter with Crossbow Expert using Action Surge) while fighting flying, fire-breathing, spellcasting, armored, house sized reptiles or an army of demons from hell.

Is Hercules strangling the Nemean lion with his bare hands, Prometheus stealing fire from the gods or Bard the archer slaying Smaug with one arrow realistic? Because those are the heroes level 20 characters are supposed to be, not John the random medieval pikeman.

[LVOD]

If it helps, don't imagine them as discrete attacks. Picture the "having four attacks" more as "more likely to do damage". If you're really interested in realism, multiple attacks with a pike wouldn't be "stab, withdraw, stab again", it would be "stab, try to twist it around in there on the way out, maybe swing around for a slash, etc."

But yeah, i agree with everyone else. Its not about realism, its about balance. Compositely they need to be doing more damage than one or two attacks per round.

[Slipperychicken]

Level 1 wizards can cast 3 spells in a round, sometimes even while talking, making an attack, and moving up to their full speed. How would a wizard be doing that? Spellcasting is already impossible, and takes incredible amounts of concentration, time, and focus. Doing it three times in a round seems incredibly unrealistic.

Historically speaking, magic was only used as a spectacle by charlatans to fool onlookers, never in what D&D calls regular combat - small, loose groups of adventurers taking on monsters.

As a DM, should I allow multiple spells in a round? Should I allow spells at all?

[Specter]

Think of a spear, make it about your size and you got a DnD pike.

[BurgerBeast]

Some of the outright dismissals of the OP's point are a bit disappointing.

There is nothing wrong with viewing casters as magical and fighters (battle masters and champions) as non-magical. Therefore there is room to have legitimate concerns about the realism of the rules governing fighters.

That being said, in the end my conclusion is the same. I think you have to take the view that fighters have some supernatural ability involved in reaching the highest levels. I rationalize this as they are literally magical, but in a different way. You would need to find "fluff" that works for you, or in the event that there is no fluff that works for you, you might have to consider changing the rules or changing the game, as suggested.

[thedanster7000]

If you want realism and historical accuracy, don't turn to D&D for it. If it really bothers you, just assume it's not a traditional pike.

[JackPhoenix]

There is nothing wrong with viewing casters as magical and fighters (battle masters and champions) as non-magical. Therefore there is room to have legitimate concerns about the realism of the rules governing fighters.

Oh, but there is, if you want to have balanced game. Limiting martial classes to stuff that's possible in real life leads to Guy at the Gym fallacy and the common 3.5/PF problem that fighters can't have nice things. Even now in 5e, lot of things spellcasters can do...like flying, teleportation, planar travel... is outright impossible for martial classes. I like mages being powerful, but taking "unrealistic" stuff from fighters would only lead them to lose their main purpose... being the best in combat... and force them to be a little more than spectators to a wizard solving the encounters before they even happen and breaking the campaign in half like in the times of high-level, high-OP 3.5e, not even fit for being an one shot, one kill ubercharger guided missiles, because they aren't magic.

[Shaofoo]

Some of the outright dismissals of the OP's point are a bit disappointing.

There is nothing wrong with viewing casters as magical and fighters (battle masters and champions) as non-magical. Therefore there is room to have legitimate concerns about the realism of the rules governing fighters.

That being said, in the end my conclusion is the same. I think you have to take the view that fighters have some supernatural ability involved in reaching the highest levels. I rationalize this as they are literally magical, but in a different way. You would need to find "fluff" that works for you, or in the event that there is no fluff that works for you, you might have to consider changing the rules or changing the game, as suggested.

They don't need to be magical, they need to be awesome. Seriously being concerned with the realism of fighters while you have a guy that can create perfect clones of himself with ice and rubies and can summon a massive ball of fire once a day (all of this BEFORE the guy can attack 4 times a round) seems misplaced. I am sure the OP has never played anything beyond the first couple of levels and is making decisions before actually experiencing it.

Also funny that the OP also gives praise to lances that can be dual wielded (as long as you are mounted of course and with a feat but all of it possible) and can be wielded well by small races but they can't a Pike.

At level 4 you can have a Beastmaster Ranger Gnome riding a Pterodactyl and dual wielding Lances, and all of it 100% RAW, and 16 levels before the whole 4 attacks per round.

[Sigreid]

A level 20 fighter is a virtual god of the battle field. I would simply assume that part of leveling up is learning or figuring out new grips and techniques with your weapons that allows you to use them in ways that defy the logic of the normal soldier.

[Hrugner]

Well, the pike is heavier and no more effective than the glaive, if someone is using it beyond early levels I'd be surprised. I'd also assume it's a 10-15 foot pike rather than some monstrous pike.

You get about a swing a second on record holding standing block racers and their target isn't moving. But then you have people doing full contact punch strikes at about 6 per second in the same sort of controlled environment. UFC stats for strikes per minute run about 7-4 per minute for fast people, so that gives you an even slower pace.

So 4, aimed, full strength, attacks in 6 seconds on a defending target is pretty fast regardless of the weapon. You may be better off not allowing the fighter if you want realistic attack speeds for anything larger than a dagger.

As an aside, Guinness doesn't have a spear strikes per minute record holder, so I think we all need to get on that.

[TripleD]

When it says "pike" I think it's really talking about a spear. When it says "spear" it means ... I don't know, BBQ skewer I guess.

This is the only way I can wrap my mind around the idea that spears have the exact same team as daggers.

[DracoKnight]

If you want games that feel more realistic, I would advise to end campains around lvl 6 or so. Or maybe even try a different system, if it doesn't work for you.

And cut all magic classes, and the Monk, and the Barbarian...in fact, pretty much all the classes by the Fighter and the Rogue.

[JackPhoenix]

And cut all magic classes, and the Monk, and the Barbarian...in fact, pretty much all the classes by the Fighter and the Rogue.

Nah, Fighters above level 1 still have Action Surge (leading to 3 attacks with pike if they have GWM from being a human) and Rogues get Cunning Action (especially Thief who can use it for object interaction).

[Mellack]

Heck, any level 1 with martial proficiency can shoot a heavy crossbow at ten shots a minute. That is over double the historical average, and it just goes up form there. Ban everyone with martial weapons!

[Sniccups]

This escalated quickly. My campaign is the kind of story where only 5 percent of the Material Plane population can cast spells, and only 10 percent of the 5 percent are beyond 1st level. Most high level casters get that way by adventuring, and past 10th level usually end up living on other planes.

[JumboWheat01]

When it says "pike" I think it's really talking about a spear. When it says "spear" it means ... I don't know, BBQ skewer I guess.

This is the only way I can wrap my mind around the idea that spears have the exact same team as daggers.

I see Spear as the standard short spear, able to be wielded with (relative) ease in one hand and with a shield, while the pike is more like the long spear, requiring two hands to use properly.


This escalated quickly. My campaign is the kind of story where only 5 percent of the Material Plane population can cast spells, and only 10 percent of the 5 percent are beyond 1st level. Most high level casters get that way by adventuring, and past 10th level usually end up living on other planes.

Perhaps explaining that before starting on realism would be a better thing to do. How do we know exactly how your campaigns are run? I certainly don't, I have 0 class levels in a Psionic class.

[Shaofoo]

This escalated quickly. My campaign is the kind of story where only 5 percent of the Material Plane population can cast spells, and only 10 percent of the 5 percent are beyond 1st level. Most high level casters get that way by adventuring, and past 10th level usually end up living on other planes.

If anyone can cast spells at any capacity then you have already firmly placed it in the fantastical side of the fantasy/reality scale.

I am not trying to offend you but your claims of realism falls very flat when you start to quote real facts and there is a guy that can shoot lightning from his hands. Maybe your campaign would benefit from a level cap where the max level isn't 20 but maybe 5 or 6.

Feel free to do whatever you want in your games but I know I would take it the wrong way if I wanted to play a Fighter and your excuse was to make things more realistic while Steve just finished summoning an imp right next to me.

[R.Shackleford]

If anyone can cast spells at any capacity then you have already firmly placed it in the fantastical side of the fantasy/reality scale.

I am not trying to offend you but your claims of realism falls very flat when you start to quote real facts and there is a guy that can shoot lightning from his hands. Maybe your campaign would benefit from a level cap where the max level isn't 20 but maybe 5 or 6.

Feel free to do whatever you want in your games but I know I would take it the wrong way if I wanted to play a Fighter and your excuse was to make things more realistic while Steve just finished summoning an imp right next to me.

I wanted to quote this so people may read it twice, a lot of people need to read this.

I'm a huge fan of fantasy, but I hate when people try to force some players to be realistic while others get these fantasy options. If you don't want everyone to be fantasy, on some level, then don't allow that class or option. Especially if you are taking things away, martials already get the short end of the pike, they don't need to be brought down further.

Either make everyone unrealistic, everyone realistic, or make it where magic and non-magic (extraordinary) both are hand waved "wizard did it" or "they are just that damn good" as an assumption.

[Mellack]

One in twenty can cast spells? That is equivilant to every smallish office having a spellcaster. Everyone having someone in their extended family being a caster. I would expect that is actually a higher percentage than most game worlds outside Ebberon. Consider, a small villiage of 500 would have 25 spellcasters. Sure, they are only cantrips and level 1 spells, but that is reasonably common. It is about half as common as left-handedness.
Sorry is that seemed aggressive, I just think people might not realize how much 5% actually is.
D&D is about heroes, not common schmoes. Everyone with even one class level can do amazing things. Trying to limit it to what normal people do is not what it is designed for.

[R.Shackleford]

One in twenty can cast spells? That is equivilant to every smallish office having a spellcaster. Everyone having someone in their extended family being a caster. I would expect that is actually a higher percentage than most game worlds outside Ebberon. Consider, a small villiage of 500 would have 25 spellcasters. Sure, they are only cantrips and level 1 spells, but that is reasonably common. It is about half as common as left-handedness.
Sorry is that seemed aggressive, I just think people might not realize how much 5% actually is.
D&D is about heroes, not common schmoes. Everyone with even one class level can do amazing things. Trying to limit it to what normal people do is not what it is designed for.

I think the issue is that class levels and commoners have been kinda merged.

A wizard is a commoner with high int, a fighter is a commoner with high str, and a cleric is a commoner with high wis... I would go more toward that a commoner (or other NPC) just doesn't have IT to ever become a wizard, fighter, or cleric. Sure they can be warriors or acolytes or maybe have spells...


Actually the best example of this is the Druid in the back of the MM. They have second level casting but they don't have Wild Shape. So that druid is a druid but isn't a PC druid, and never can be.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

While I love a "Melee should get nice things" debate, wasn't the argument rendered moot by posters repeatedly pointing out that the D&D "pike" is actually more like a basic spear? Seriously, the solution is very simple:

Step 1: Rename "spear" to "short spear," which it is, because it lacks reach.
Step 2: Rename "pike" to "spear," which it is, because it lacks more reach than other pole arms.
With these two steps, you have explained how a mythical warrior can stab someone with a reasonable-length polearm approximately once per 1.5 seconds.

If you miss pikes, well, the solution is to recognize that they don't yet exist within D&D rules:
Step 3: Homebrew a real pike with plenty of reach and the lance disadvantage property. It's too long and cumbersome for adventurers to really want it for day-to-day use, but it's there if you want a pike formation.

[Shaofoo]

While I love a "Melee should get nice things" debate, wasn't the argument rendered moot by posters repeatedly pointing out that the D&D "pike" is actually more like a basic spear? Seriously, the solution is very simple:

Step 1: Rename "spear" to "short spear," which it is, because it lacks reach.
Step 2: Rename "pike" to "spear," which it is, because it lacks more reach than other pole arms.
With these two steps, you have explained how a mythical warrior can stab someone with a reasonable-length polearm approximately once per 1.5 seconds.

If you miss pikes, well, the solution is to recognize that they don't yet exist within D&D rules:
Step 3: Homebrew a real pike with plenty of reach and the lance disadvantage property. It's too long and cumbersome for adventurers to really want it for day-to-day use, but it's there if you want a pike formation.

A Fighter can still attack 4 times a round with your homebrew pike, it does nothing to limit this.

Not that you should muck around with it but the problem is that Fighters can attack with Pikes and this is independent of how you design a weapon unless you make some sort of Loading property for melee where you can only attack once a round regardless of how many attacks you get.

It isn't "Melee should get nice things" more like "Don't take away Melee's nice things".

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The following line implies OP's issue is mitigated by disadvantage when the enemy isn't at max reach.
At least the lance has disadvantage 5 feet from the target.Furthermore, it seems just as easy to imagine a combatant making four quick pike thrusts as it does another combatant making four greatsword swings. The OP's issue pretty clearly is how it is trivial to short-haft what should (by name, at least) be a massive wooden pole and start doing quick motions with it. That's modeled well enough by disadvantage to me, given 5e's aversion to granularity and fiddly bits.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Level 20 fighters get 4 attacks per round. How would a fighter be doing that with a pike? Medieval pikes were up to 25 feet long, and in D&D they can only attack up to 10 feet away... a pike should not be able to attack something 5 feet away. It seems incredibly unrealistic to be able to attack a target 5 feet away with an 18 foot piercing weapon 4 times after moving 30 feet all in 6 seconds.

The fluff disagrees with the crunch. At least the lance has disadvantage 5 feet from the target.

Historically speaking, pikes were only used in tight formations with foot soldiers, never in what D&D calls regular combat - small, loose groups of adventurers taking on monsters.

As a Dm, should I allow multiple attacks with a pike? Should I allow pikes at all?

Do you ban Spellcasting classes because they aren't "realistic"? If not, don't do anything. Realism isn't what the game is about. It's about fun. Let players have their fun.

If you do ban casters; well stay consistent.

[Strill]

D&D is not realistic, it doesn't try to.

It actually does try to be. Gygax went to the trouble of looking up historical records for the prices of various goods when he was designing the equipment section.


If you miss pikes, well, the solution is to recognize that they don't yet exist within D&D rules:

A proper pike should be included in rules for warfare and mass combat.

[Doug Lampert]

Some of the outright dismissals of the OP's point are a bit disappointing.

There is nothing wrong with viewing casters as magical and fighters (battle masters and champions) as non-magical. Therefore there is room to have legitimate concerns about the realism of the rules governing fighters.

That being said, in the end my conclusion is the same. I think you have to take the view that fighters have some supernatural ability involved in reaching the highest levels. I rationalize this as they are literally magical, but in a different way. You would need to find "fluff" that works for you, or in the event that there is no fluff that works for you, you might have to consider changing the rules or changing the game, as suggested.

I'm fine with a realistic fighter.

But if fighters need to be realistic give them the strengths of realism as well as the weaknesses.

You start waving your hands in complicated movements and chanting weird words near a realistic fighter, he kills you dead. There's no pile of HP to stop this, no concentration role, no Armor Class that says it's hard to hit someone who's not really defending themselves. You are now trying to breathe without a throat.

The realistic fighter can kill ANYTHING with a single blow, and because he's skilled he has a fairly good chance of doing so. The largest animal alive isn't big enough to be immune to hand wielded weapons, this is even more true if you limit it to land animals. If the realistic fighter FAILS to kill you, then the wound may well NEVER heal properly, you certainly won't be fine the next day or because a priest mutters a few words over you.

You get out your bat guano and sulfur and chant and wave your hands, it does NOTHING to a realistic fighter, because no realistic fighter has ever burned to death due to a fireball spell. In fact the realistic fighter is totally immune to hostile magic. Because realistically everyone is immune to magic since magic doesn't work.

The realistic fighter can cover over 100' a round and attack, fairly easily, he can go faster if he really wants to.

If you are going to insist that fighters be realistic, then make them realistic.

They don't need to work through piles of HP, because creatures with lots of HP aren't realistic. They don't get injured or hampered by magic, because magic isn't realistic, they move far faster than other D&D characters, because the movement rates aren't all that realistic (they're fine if you assume bad footing and careful movements and that no one ever sprints).

But if fighters need to be realistic give them the strengths of realism as well as the weaknesses.

But no one seems to actually want "realistic" fighters in D&D, when they appeal to realism what they want is to take away a D&D fighter's minor in game unrealistic strengths, while not doing a thing to make up for the massive and far more unrealistic weaknesses that D&D saddles the fighter with.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

A proper pike should be included in rules for warfare and mass combat.True. Implied by the existence of a 20' pike is the awkwardness of carrying it around in a dungeon, or around town. I do not begrudge WotC their decision not to include such material in the main book; I only mean to say that it's easy enough to cook up with the current weapon paradigms if one feels it's missing, and that the weapon labeled "pike" is not what initially comes to mind.

[R.Shackleford]

It actually does try to be. Gygax went to the trouble of looking up historical records for the prices of various goods when he was designing the equipment section.



A proper pike should be included in rules for warfare and mass combat.

Gygax did a lot of things, he may have tried to have some fluff be realistic but his game was not.

Plus, Gygax doesn't really have anything to do with 3e, 4e, and 5e. Sure these games take inspiration from his game, but they are vastly different and more based on videogames than D&D originally was (for good reason lol).

Using Gygax as an excuse is pretty useless when referring to d&d, unless you are explaining the history of the game. It would be like giving Henry Ford credit for the design of the 2017 Ford Mustang.

[Strill]

Gygax did a lot of things, he may have tried to have some fluff be realistic but his game was not.

Plus, Gygax doesn't really have anything to do with 3e, 4e, and 5e. Sure these games take inspiration from his game, but they are vastly different and more based on videogames than D&D originally was (for good reason lol).

Using Gygax as an excuse is pretty useless when referring to d&d, unless you are explaining the history of the game. It would be like giving Henry Ford credit for the design of the 2017 Ford Mustang.

The commodity prices from 1e are the same as those in 5e.

[R.Shackleford]

The commodity prices from 1e are the same as those in 5e.

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?


The game takes root in his work, yes as I've said, but it is severely different game. WotC D&D (3e, 4e, and 5e) emulates videogame trends more so than it emulates Gygax D&D.

[Strill]

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?You complained that the books have changed since 1e and I'm showing you that they haven't.

[DracoKnight]

I'm fine with a realistic fighter.

But if fighters need to be realistic give them the strengths of realism as well as the weaknesses.

You start waving your hands in complicated movements and chanting weird words near a realistic fighter, he kills you dead. There's no pile of HP to stop this, no concentration role, no Armor Class that says it's hard to hit someone who's not really defending themselves. You are now trying to breathe without a throat.

The realistic fighter can kill ANYTHING with a single blow, and because he's skilled he has a fairly good chance of doing so. The largest animal alive isn't big enough to be immune to hand wielded weapons, this is even more true if you limit it to land animals. If the realistic fighter FAILS to kill you, then the wound may well NEVER heal properly, you certainly won't be fine the next day or because a priest mutters a few words over you.

You get out your bat guano and sulfur and chant and wave your hands, it does NOTHING to a realistic fighter, because no realistic fighter has ever burned to death due to a fireball spell. In fact the realistic fighter is totally immune to hostile magic. Because realistically everyone is immune to magic since magic doesn't work.

The realistic fighter can cover over 100' a round and attack, fairly easily, he can go faster if he really wants to.

If you are going to insist that fighters be realistic, then make them realistic.

They don't need to work through piles of HP, because creatures with lots of HP aren't realistic. They don't get injured or hampered by magic, because magic isn't realistic, they move far faster than other D&D characters, because the movement rates aren't all that realistic (they're fine if you assume bad footing and careful movements and that no one ever sprints).

But if fighters need to be realistic give them the strengths of realism as well as the weaknesses.

But no one seems to actually want "realistic" fighters in D&D, when they appeal to realism what they want is to take away a D&D fighter's minor in game unrealistic strengths, while not doing a thing to make up for the massive and far more unrealistic weaknesses that D&D saddles the fighter with.

Due to the lack of rebuttal to your comments, I'd say you probably just won the realistic/unrealistic fighter debate. *slow claps* Internet, you can all go home. Realistic Fighter OP, let it be unrealistic so that those poor, squishy mages have a chance to live, eh? :smallwink:

[Tanarii]

IMO if you want a 5e D&D weapon more like a historical Pike, you want to use the Lance on foot. Reach only, can't attack adjacent foes, and needs two hands.

I think of the D&D pike as a long spear, maybe 7ft long. Fairly easy to short haft for close in attacks, although still a little too long to use the butt end (so can't be used with PAM for the bonus action attack). And still long enough two hands are needed.

Meanwhile a 5e Spear might be 4ft long. Usable two handed, usable by small races without issue, and usable with a shield out of formation fighting, and able to be thrown easily one handed.

[Morty]

I see a lot of ranting about how terribad realism is, without a lot of actual advice about how to solve the OP's problem. 5e's realism is positively quantum, in that its existence or absence can explain away just about anything. Anyway, let me try to offer some suggestions.

What I'd do in this situation is abstract it a little. Four attacks with a pike don't necessarily mean four stabs. Describe it as shoving, driving the handle into enemies, swinging it around... and so on. A warrior with four attacks, wielding a long weapon, can control the battlefield around them. Describe it this way.

It would be easier if 5e's only method of representing martial prowess wasn't more attacks, but what can you do.

[Giant2005]

4 attacks in 6 seconds with a Pike is pretty insignificant when it comes to suspension of disbelief.
Think of a conga line of X number of goblins all attacking a Dex based character within 6 seconds.
They all mange to march in there, get an attack off and leave within a single 6 second timeframe. Except the first goblin's 6 seconds is the same 6 seconds as the next's, and the one after, and the one after that. So in a physical sense, those goblins are all overlapping in the same physical space while they make their attack as if it was a convergence of goblins from a potentially infinite number of dimensions all attacking that one character in that one dimension, simultaneously.
Meanwhile, that defensive character is getting their full Dex bonus on all of those potentially infinite attacks. They are actively evading attacks that are coming from an infinite number of dimensions simultaneously, creating a matrix-like blur of evasion that Neo himself could only look at with his trademark expression of awe.

[Kryx]

It would be easier if 5e's only method of representing martial prowess wasn't more attacks, but what can you do.
Only Fighter gets 4 attacks. Every other class gets 2 attacks and mechanical benefits that make their damage equivalent to a fighter.

If you want the Fighter to have 2 attacks you could easily accomplish that by either copying a mechanic that another class gets or creating your own that creates equivalent level damage.

[Shaofoo]

The following line implies OP's issue is mitigated by disadvantage when the enemy isn't at max reach.Furthermore, it seems just as easy to imagine a combatant making four quick pike thrusts as it does another combatant making four greatsword swings. The OP's issue pretty clearly is how it is trivial to short-haft what should (by name, at least) be a massive wooden pole and start doing quick motions with it. That's modeled well enough by disadvantage to me, given 5e's aversion to granularity and fiddly bits.

Then why can't four quick jabs be an appropriate excuse for the actual game as well?

Also the Lance isn't realistic unless you can prove that you can somehow dual wield Lances (with a feat but totally possible) with great effectiveness while riding on a horse where a Pike is still two handed regardless if you are riding on something or not (no feat to make the dual wielding Pike work). Also that the Lance is good for small guys while the Pike isn't (or most two handed weapons).

Seriously if the problem is so trivial why isn't it considered over and done with?

Also why is 4 attacks the broke the camel's back, is 3 attacks somehow okay?


I see a lot of ranting about how terribad realism is, without a lot of actual advice about how to solve the OP's problem. 5e's realism is positively quantum, in that its existence or absence can explain away just about anything. Anyway, let me try to offer some suggestions.

What I'd do in this situation is abstract it a little. Four attacks with a pike don't necessarily mean four stabs. Describe it as shoving, driving the handle into enemies, swinging it around... and so on. A warrior with four attacks, wielding a long weapon, can control the battlefield around them. Describe it this way.

It would be easier if 5e's only method of representing martial prowess wasn't more attacks, but what can you do.

The problem is that he appeals to realism in a game where 1 in 20 people have the innate ability to cast magic, which is quite common all things considering. His appeal falls flat when next door there can be a guy who can make his teapot glow by saying a bunch of funny words and making a little dance. Like I said I'd be a bit sour if I had some things be nerfed in the name of realism while the guy next to me gets to fling cold bolts all day without a care in the world.

Realism isn't terribad, it is terribad to use it as an excuse to commit the guy at the gym fallacy.

And I and someone else did give a solution to his problem, to limit the levels of his campaign to 6 (or some other arbitrary single digit number) so that the more egregious examples of unrealism doesn't show its face around those parts which should also stop those high level spells as well, make it even for everyone.

Also 5e does handle extra fighting prowess through extra damage more often than extra attacks, the Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger get this instead of more attacks and the Rogue never gets more attacks but does have an increasing Sneak Attack dice.

[Sniccups]

The issue is that he can stab (yes, stab, it does piercing damage) 4 DIFFERENT people and run 30 feet in 6 seconds. Each stab is more deadly than a cantrip, and he can do this all day. It is damage you would see on 3rd level spells, every round, without casting anything. With Action Surge, this fighter gets to stab 8 times with a 10 foot weapon in 6 seconds. 8d10 is the kind of damage a 5th level spell would do, WITHOUT ANY MAGIC.

[Shaofoo]

The issue is that he can stab (yes, stab, it does piercing damage) 4 DIFFERENT people and run 30 feet in 6 seconds. Each stab is more deadly than a cantrip, and he can do this all day. It is damage you would see on 3rd level spells, every round, without casting anything. With Action Surge, this fighter gets to stab 8 times with a 10 foot weapon in 6 seconds. 8d10 is the kind of damage a 5th level spell would do, WITHOUT ANY MAGIC.

At high levels a cantrip does more damage than any single stab from a pike and Eldritch Blast can output the same damage that a Pike can do from a range and can achieve max potential damage earlier than the Fighter can. And said magic user can cast cantrips all day just like the Fighter can swing his Pike all day as well.

Also I would like to add that he can't Action Surge all day, in fact only once a round, twice a short rest. And I do say short rest cause the game doesn't expect you to take a short rest after every fight so the game expects encounters where the Fighter can't use his Action Surge at all if he was using it liberally.

Also Fireball is a 3rd level spell and does 8d6 damage in an area, the damage might be similar but a Fighter can never target everyone in a 20 foot circle with his spear like you can with a Fireball.

But I seriously wonder what is your point in all of this. That the game is unrealistic? With 61 HP you can survive a fall from literally any height (30000 feet in the air? still 20d6 and since you only die instantly if your negative HP equals your max HP you'd be left with -59 HP) and with only a pound of food it is enough to be able to perform grueling tasks all day. And there is the small PC dual wielding Lances while riding a dog (I did say pterodactyl but while legal isn't in the PHB while a mastiff is in the PHB). I am sure there are a ton of other examples as well.

Seriously, what is the purpose of this topic? You can do whatever you want in your game since it seems that you obviously want to do it.

[djreynolds]

Level 20 fighters get 4 attacks per round. How would a fighter be doing that with a pike? Medieval pikes were up to 25 feet long, and in D&D they can only attack up to 10 feet away... a pike should not be able to attack something 5 feet away. It seems incredibly unrealistic to be able to attack a target 5 feet away with an 18 foot piercing weapon 4 times after moving 30 feet all in 6 seconds.

The fluff disagrees with the crunch. At least the lance has disadvantage 5 feet from the target.

Historically speaking, pikes were only used in tight formations with foot soldiers, never in what D&D calls regular combat - small, loose groups of adventurers taking on monsters.

As a Dm, should I allow multiple attacks with a pike? Should I allow pikes at all?

Anything in 6 seconds is strange, you just have to let it go.

Start pulling threads and the whole world comes apart. Heck even twice in 6 seconds is a lot. But these are fantasy fighters, of unparalleled ability, heroes.

I tend to ignore that a round is 6 seconds, because it takes my players forever to decide what to do anyhow.

If your players want a more realistic game, I get it.

[BurgerBeast]

Seriously, what is the purpose of this topic? You can do whatever you want in your game since it seems that you obviously want to do it.

Wow. Seriously bad form.

"You can [edit: do] whatever you want in your game so never ask any questions that I think are pointless."

You can do whatever you want in real life, so maybe just don't reply to threads that you think are pointless. There's no reason to be a jerk about it.

The OP is asking a question in order to gain some insight. The game doesn't line up with his expectations, and it might not be immediately obvious to him whether he would rather adjust the rules or his expectations. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I see a point. Just because you don't, doesn't mean there isn't one.

[R.Shackleford]

The issue is that he can stab (yes, stab, it does piercing damage) 4 DIFFERENT people and run 30 feet in 6 seconds. Each stab is more deadly than a cantrip, and he can do this all day. It is damage you would see on 3rd level spells, every round, without casting anything. With Action Surge, this fighter gets to stab 8 times with a 10 foot weapon in 6 seconds. 8d10 is the kind of damage a 5th level spell would do, WITHOUT ANY MAGIC.

Called fantasy, the fighter is Just That Damn Good.

[JumboWheat01]

Called fantasy, the fighter is Just That Damn Good.

It's also what separates the Fighter from the other heavy melee classes, the Paladin and the Barbarian. The Paladin calls upon divine power to make his attacks powerful and to aid his allies. The Barbarian gets really angry to make his attacks powerful and more brutal. The Fighter relies on good ol' fashioned hard training to hit hard, hit fast, and hit more often. War is all they know, war is all they do. Woe betide those who think a Fighter is a simple guardsman or soldier who's away from their city. They have mastered their weapons and their muscles, and you will fall.

[R.Shackleford]

It's also what separates the Fighter from the other heavy melee classes, the Paladin and the Barbarian. The Paladin calls upon divine power to make his attacks powerful and to aid his allies. The Barbarian gets really angry to make his attacks powerful and more brutal. The Fighter relies on good ol' fashioned hard training to hit hard, hit fast, and hit more often. War is all they know, war is all they do. Woe betide those who think a Fighter is a simple guardsman or soldier who's away from their city. They have mastered their weapons and their muscles, and you will fall.

To be fair, this iteration as is the core 3e Fighter, is so mundane that I don't blame people for thinking they are essentially commoners.

The Warblade (or refluffed Crusader, I love their mechanics) and the 4e Fighter (NOT the Essentials fighter) are less mundane and more extraordinary and leads people to have a disconnect between town guardsmen and Fighter.

[Sniccups]

Okay, I get it. You don't have to keep going on about it. This was not the response I was expecting, but this is GiantITP. I should have known this would happen.

[R.Shackleford]

Okay, I get it. You don't have to keep going on about it. This was not the response I was expecting, but this is GiantITP. I should have known this would happen.

So you didn't want to have a discussion, you just wanted people to agree with you?

Yeah, welcome to the internet!

[djreynolds]

Okay, I get it. You don't have to keep going on about it. This was not the response I was expecting, but this is GiantITP. I should have known this would happen.

It's a good discussion, but how would you make it more realistic.

A cantrip is at will, which is very powerful and does scale close to a fighter's attacks.

You would have to hamper all reach weapons accordingly to be fair.

And Lance usually isn't handle like a pike. An AFB, a pike is only a 10 ft reach maybe 15.

You could easily removed something from a pikes number of attacks, but give the weapon another bonus. Something historically accurate.

[Sniccups]

It's a good discussion, but how would you make it more realistic.

A cantrip is at will, which is very powerful and does scale close to a fighter's attacks.

You would have to hamper all reach weapons accordingly to be fair.

And Lance usually isn't handle like a pike. An AFB, a pike is only a 10 ft reach maybe 15.

You could easily removed something from a pikes number of attacks, but give the weapon another bonus. Something historically accurate.

This is the response I was expecting. Thank you. I just wanted advice on how to balance the pike with other weapons while still maintaining historical accuracy, but apparently my opening post did not seem that way.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Ah, realism. I think about it, am inspired by it, and then...

Nope.

I've tried to make the fighter class as relevant as full casters at the highest levels chasing realism-inspired muses.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzHVsiBMMb98Qkh1dklrT1BQMXc/view?usp=sharing

I've all but abandoned it. No one seems interested in PEACHing it.

If you think there's a problem with fighters (I do) and are serious about improving fighters (not just all martials), consider the following quick fixes.

1. Give fighters (and fighters only) double their STR /DEX mods to melee damage. Too much? Limit it to a favored weapon or two. Or maybe 1/2 weapon/level. Rogues get 2x proficiency in two skills on day one, why not fighters? Anyone can hit something with a stick, but fighters do it best.

2. Give fighters (and fighters only) the ability to ignore all armor table DEX mod restrictions. Too much? Reduce DEX mod restrictions by one category (i.e. heavy allows up to +2 AC, medium has no restrictions). Armor is armor to a fighter.

3. Give all fighters the parry ability (+2AC vs one seen melee attack/turn). A fighter should be amazing when only having to face ONE foe in melee. NPCs have this (noble, bandit captain), but not a trained fighter? Bah.

Four attacks with a pike? Yeah, not realism, but then again, that's DnD.

IMHO the PAM second attack is kinda silly. It should have allowed a + die or damage upgrade on all pole weps instead of a multiattack, and ability to ignore half cover. A PAM IRL is able to attack over/around an ally.

[Kurt Kurageous]

This is the response I was expecting. Thank you. I just wanted advice on how to balance the pike with other weapons while still maintaining historical accuracy, but apparently my opening post did not seem that way.

Realism considered.

I see your problem. Pikes were meant to be used versus mounted opponents, and never as a multiattack.

The pike delivers a lot of force from focusing its weight (plus the weight of the user and perhaps the ground itself) onto a very small area. This much force tends to knock targets over.

Limit the multiattack to one target, or two attacks each versus two targets maximum.

Compensate by making the target (mounted or not) save STR/DEX (acrobatics?) vs a DC equal to the amount of damage delivered. Fail = knocked off the mount/knocked prone. This should only works versus a target of the same size or smaller.

Lance is used mounted and perhaps follow the same restrictions.

[Knaight]

I'm inclined to back the short pike explanation - even in a medieval context 25 feet is extremely long (18 or so was on the high end for formation fighting), and while exact definitions of when a spear turns into a pike are usually sketchy I typically see them placed somewhere around the 9 foot mark. Those shorter pikes also do have a history of being used in small skirmishes and the like, and there are a couple of medieval fighting manuals which portray them as fairly solid weapons that have an edge over most things even in a duel. As for the speed concern, getting 4 attacks in 6 seconds really isn't that unrealistic, particularly when the chance of all four landing is comparatively small. It's the 1 attack per 6 seconds at low levels which is weird, particularly as hits that actually connect are more like 1 per 12 seconds. Combat is faster than that.

With that said: Given that you can attack someone 5' away with a dagger, and given that even a short pike has close to a 10' reach advantage over a dagger a pike probably should be able to attack 15' away. Disadvantage or similar is reasonable for these attacks as they are within lunging distance and outside the distance of most stabs (thus making what attacks you can do a lot more predictable), but the total absence of them just seems weird.

[Sniccups]

Pikes are just so much longer than other reach weapons (halberds were around 6 feet) that I would give them 15 foot reach and... maybe 2d4 damage? Slightly less.

[Slipperychicken]

The issue is that he can stab (yes, stab, it does piercing damage) 4 DIFFERENT people and run 30 feet in 6 seconds. Each stab is more deadly than a cantrip, and he can do this all day. It is damage you would see on 3rd level spells, every round, without casting anything. With Action Surge, this fighter gets to stab 8 times with a 10 foot weapon in 6 seconds. 8d10 is the kind of damage a 5th level spell would do, WITHOUT ANY MAGIC.

Yes. This is okay because a level 20 fighter is meant to represent a super powerful fantasy hero who fights dragons and gods. Guys kind of like Hercules or Samson. That means they can do a lot of things that normal folks can't.

[R.Shackleford]

Pikes are just so much longer than other reach weapons (halberds were around 6 feet) that I would give them 15 foot reach and... maybe 2d4 damage? Slightly less.

Casters do so much more magic than normal folks, maybe we should get rid of magic?

Maybe burning hands requires a tinderbox and can only damage one creature and deals 1d2 fire damage?

[Alejandro]

Pikes are just so much longer than other reach weapons (halberds were around 6 feet) that I would give them 15 foot reach and... maybe 2d4 damage? Slightly less.

You really don't want to do that, if you have competent, martial-liking players.

I would just leave it alone. How often are you seeing any of your PCs use a pike anyway?

[Sniccups]

All right, all right, I won't try and go for realism in this game. No one seems to think it's a good idea.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I don't think you should change anything. Just because it doesn't seem "historically accurate" doesn't mean it needs to change. The point some people are attempting to make and coming off as aggressive, or outright rude, is that d&d is not meant to stimulate realism but fantasy. If a player wants to have a reach weapon and be an awesome Pike wielding warrior just let them. It's not going to break game balance for them to do the thing their class was specifically designed to do and in fantasy it's perfectly reasonable. Just because average Joe cannot move 30' and stab four different guys with a pointed stick doesn't mean fantasy 20th level fighter cannot. They specifically can.

Now if you do make this change anyway then you better take a look at other things that break realism like studded leather armor and the death mechanics. Stay consistent.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Then why can't four quick jabs be an appropriate excuse for the actual game as well?

Also the Lance isn't realistic unless you can prove that you can somehow dual wield Lances (with a feat but totally possible) with great effectiveness while riding on a horse where a Pike is still two handed regardless if you are riding on something or not (no feat to make the dual wielding Pike work). Also that the Lance is good for small guys while the Pike isn't (or most two handed weapons).

Seriously if the problem is so trivial why isn't it considered over and done with?

Also why is 4 attacks the broke the camel's back, is 3 attacks somehow okay?Three things.
1. It appears I may have mis-characterized OP's issues to try and make them more sensible.
2. Less a straw and more of a gradient of incredible feats someone is able to pull. 4 is more incredible than 3 and so on.
3. Corner cases make for corner solutions. Dual-wielding lances both looks dumb and does not attune with the genre; of course, since it's dual-wielding, you're effectively getting punished for doing it anyway I guess. I also agree there should be mount-less 1 handed reach weapons with appropriate drawbacks, as they represent common fighting tactics.

But more importantly, I agree it's not an issue; I was just hoping that the OP's issue was more constrained to the logistics of carrying a massive pike around.

(Regarding the discussion of pikes being 9', great, but that's probably more "historical average" than anything. There was plenty of variance.)


The issue is that he can stab (yes, stab, it does piercing damage) 4 DIFFERENT people and run 30 feet in 6 seconds. Each stab is more deadly than a cantrip, and he can do this all day. It is damage you would see on 3rd level spells, every round, without casting anything. With Action Surge, this fighter gets to stab 8 times with a 10 foot weapon in 6 seconds. 8d10 is the kind of damage a 5th level spell would do, WITHOUT ANY MAGIC.Without magic, no, a single fighter attack does less damage than a cantrip of equal level. Firebolts, for instance, are doing 4d10 at this point, and potentially adding a casting modifier, and they're attacking at range. A single hit of a polearm will, at best, deal 1d10+5 before magic is considered. Eldritch blasts are basically keeping up with a fighter in a featless game, plus shoving people around, plus being ranged, plus being force damage.

But more to the point, by the time the Fighter is at the peak of his ability, don't you think he should be able to replicate the killing-power of one of the wizard's (at this point) lower level effects? He's the greatest warrior anyone has ever seen or even heard of, and you expect his main thing to be less spectacular than a capability the wizard had 11 levels ago? Sounds like an NPC class at a certain point.

Also, what makes four spear attacks all that more ridiculous than, say, four swings of a big ol' great ax?

[JackPhoenix]

This is the response I was expecting. Thank you. I just wanted advice on how to balance the pike with other weapons while still maintaining historical accuracy, but apparently my opening post did not seem that way.

You can choose one or the other. Either the pike is balanced with other weapons, or it's realistic.. real weapons aren't balanced with each other, because they have different uses, different costs, different skill requirements from users and even different cultural background. If you make the pike useless for the sake of "historical accuracy", players will just use different, better weapon that haven't got through this nerf... halberd or glaive, for example.

Why are 4 attacks with a pike (which seems more like a long spear than a proper pike anyway) problem, while 4 attacks with halberd, maul or heavy crossbow are apparently perfectly fine?

[Sniccups]

Okay, I have to agree here. Any heavy melee weapon where you hold your hands apart (maul, pike, halberd, glaive, etc) really should not be able to hit 4 times in 6 seconds, but it is a part of the rules.

[Kryx]

As mentioned earlier, if you don't want 4 attacks then replace it with something equivalent. Finding something equivalent is challenging though as you want each fighting style to be equally valued.

[Knaight]

All right, all right, I won't try and go for realism in this game. No one seems to think it's a good idea.
It's not an achievable goal, but there's room to at least make it more realistic. The problem here is that the realism you're trying to impose isn't particularly realistic.


Okay, I have to agree here. Any heavy melee weapon where you hold your hands apart (maul, pike, halberd, glaive, etc) really should not be able to hit 4 times in 6 seconds, but it is a part of the rules.
A second and a half is a long time in a fight, and while a straight up sledgehammer made for things other than combat probably isn't going to manage that sort of speed everything else you listed absolutely can. Against a reasonably good combatant they probably won't hit that quickly (although even there, if two people who are both more aggressive than they probably should be go at it things can be over quickly), but that's already theoretically represented in D&D via the HP system*.

*Whether or not this is a good representation is a different matter entirely; I'd argue that it's pretty terrible for a whole host of reasons.

[R.Shackleford]

You complained that the books have changed since 1e and I'm showing you that they haven't.

I didn't complain about anything.

The game has roots in Gygax, however if you actually read the rules for the game you will see they are absolutely different.

The fact that D&D is primarily a combat game and you use the prices of goods as an example makes me laugh.

The games are completely different on tone, structure, and expectations. The fact that a cleric or wizard can have thieves tools and Sleight of Hand Proficiencies without a lot of crazy hoops shows you right off that the tone is massively different.

WotC D&D =/= Gygaxian D&D, not by a long shot. WotC D&D has roots there but again, it's like saying that Henry Ford is directly responsible for the design 2017 Ford Mustang or the 2017 Ford Mustang engine.

[Shaofoo]

Wow. Seriously bad form.

"You can [edit: do] whatever you want in your game so never ask any questions that I think are pointless."

You can do whatever you want in real life, so maybe just don't reply to threads that you think are pointless. There's no reason to be a jerk about it.

The OP is asking a question in order to gain some insight. The game doesn't line up with his expectations, and it might not be immediately obvious to him whether he would rather adjust the rules or his expectations. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I see a point. Just because you don't, doesn't mean there isn't one.

And if you actually read what I said and instead of chasing for conflicts to start I did give some insight. I gave some suggestions as to preserve the semblance of realism by basically limiting the levels one can gain so you can never reach the high levels where things get wonky as did someone else. Four attacks per round never becomes a problem if you can never reach it as does a ton of other problems with realism, it'd be like making fighters attack five times a round at level 21, not a problem because the system doesn't allow the characters to advance beyond level 20.

Also I never said to never ask questions, ask all the questions you want. But I would invite you to read my sig and notice if you actually want clarification or confirmation. Everything changes when asking a question you already have an answer in mind.

But you are defending someone who basically said that this was the response he was expecting, so your move.

[smcmike]

All right, all right, I won't try and go for realism in this game. No one seems to think it's a good idea.

I don't think worrying too much about realism is a good idea, but I share your instinct to care about it. I like my mundanes to be mundane. On the other hand, as sown one pointed out earlier, applying realism to people with big deadly weapons means that anyone should be killable with one hit, among many other things. Also, crossbow attack speed is way more ridiculous than any other weapon. I don't really see any problem with attacking 4 times with most melee weapons. 6 seconds is a long time.


The issue is that he can stab (yes, stab, it does piercing damage) 4 DIFFERENT people and run 30 feet in 6 seconds. Each stab is more deadly than a cantrip, and he can do this all day. It is damage you would see on 3rd level spells, every round, without casting anything. With Action Surge, this fighter gets to stab 8 times with a 10 foot weapon in 6 seconds. 8d10 is the kind of damage a 5th level spell would do, WITHOUT ANY MAGIC.

This isn't a realism argument. Are you arguing fighters are STRONGER than mages?

[Telwar]

All right, all right, I won't try and go for realism in this game. No one seems to think it's a good idea.

It's not that "realism" is the problem, it's that it's being applied arbitrarily.

You say that magic-user types are very rare, and that very few of those get to any high level, but this obviously isn't going to apply to the PCs. So you're going to have very, very few people who can cast high-level spells other than the eventual PCs, but otherwise that won't affect the players in any meaningful way.

Why, then, are we restricting high-level fighters abilities with certain weapons because those aren't realistic? Why can't we just broaden the above rule to "badasses are rare" and then you'll have the exact same rule applied to everyone, with the same effects (I.e. very few, if any...there will be very few high-end fighters or archpriests or guildmasters or grandmasters who can train/help/serve as contacts/mercenaries/be ganked to establish that someone's a threat).

Besides, the campaign will likely end LONG before the PCs hit 20th level and the party fighter who hasn't multiclassed all to hell already can hit someone a 4th time with a lance. WotC doesn't care about high-level game balance, why should anyone else? :smallredface:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's not that "realism" is the problem, it's that it's being applied arbitrarily.

This has always been my issue with this argument.

I mean, if we want realism than every spell-caster is just a rogue with sleight of hand and performance expertise.

Which to be honest could make a very interesting system.

[JumboWheat01]

This has always been my issue with this argument.

I mean, if we want realism than every spell-caster is just a rogue with sleight of hand and performance expertise.

Which to be honest could make a very interesting system.

Or an alchemist! Bat guano and sulfur mixed correctly to make an explosive cocktail!

Hmm... I wonder how a game where magic is nothing but highly-brewed potions would work...

[djreynolds]

Every weapon and spell needs a place. A reason to be wielded. Or cast.

It's a tough sell and any change causes ripples.

Sounds silly, but the pike is very limited for the most part. Aside from PAM and other weapon styles, that may or not be being used.

I think extend its reach but give disadvantage in 5ft. This might be a compromise.

And

[Kryx]

If you want to change Pike then rename it to Long Spear and then add a new weapon to handle your Pike with longer reach imo.

[Coffee_Dragon]

This has always been my issue with this argument.

I mean, if we want realism than every spell-caster is just a rogue with sleight of hand and performance expertise.

And my issue (to add a voice with a bit of sympathy for the OP) has always been with the second sentence as an example of throwing out any attempt to distinguish between different levels or senses of "realism" - which, after all, most people are perfectly capable of.

For my own part, abstracting the four pike attacks is not much of a problem (and interpreting it as a misnamed spear helps, or stretching a round to ten seconds, or whatever), but I think it's good to keep in mind that different people react to different things depending on real world knowledge, genre expectations, conceptualization of abstractions and so on. There's definitely some other stuff that sets me off and gets me thinking about house rules, so why don't I give this other guy the benefit of a doubt and not expect he's forgotten that dragons are granted reality in a fantastic context or something. Thinking that some rule or property needlessly violates basic ways in which the world is expected to operate is not the same as trying to rid it of magic. There could be excellent arguments against this, including ones involving abstractions of heroic capability and conduct, but I don't particularly think those arguments include the canned response of "there are dragons, and you're concerned about [insert anything]", and I think it doesn't reflect awesomely on the forum that it's given as much credit as it is.

"Check out this awesome new feat, Shield Slapper. I can use a bonus attack to flip my shield around and whip my opponent with the straps! SLAP! In the FACE! So awesome."

"Wait, that doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone do that once, let alone every six seconds in every fight? It's not realistic at all."

"THERE ARE ORCS AND YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SHIELD STRAPS"

"^this"

"^^1000x this"

"^^^Bob says it all again, I agree with Bob"

"^^^^haha sigged"

[smcmike]

^^1000x this

[Tanarii]

If you want to change Pike then rename it to Long Spear and then add a new weapon to handle your Pike with longer reach imo.

Maybe give the new weapon a new special property, if you don't like Extra Attack meaning more attacks. Add one additional die roll of damage per extra attack you'd normally get, or something.

Obviously this would have implications for anything that works better or worse off single attacks, so I'm not sure how balanced it would be.

[R.Shackleford]

Maybe give the new weapon a new special property, if you don't like Extra Attack meaning more attacks. Add one additional die roll of damage per extra attack you'd normally get, or something.

Obviously this would have implications for anything that works better or worse off single attacks, so I'm not sure how balanced it would be.

I REALLY miss 4e's weapon table.

I might remake 5e's table with a little help from 3e/4e (I loved the Brutal Property).

[Coffee_Dragon]

Was there ever a community project to really whip the tables into shape? If we started a thread and invited people to list any perceived improprieties, how many pages before we could even get down to addressing them?

[Hrugner]

Was there ever a community project to really whip the tables into shape? If we started a thread and invited people to list any perceived improprieties, how many pages before we could even get down to addressing them?

You'd probably be better off just making the tables more general and DM adjudicated like everything else.
Something like:

light, reach, or finesse reduce dice size by one.
two handed, heavy, or martial, increase dice size by one
finesse free with light and banned with heavy
base 1d6 damage

That gets you most of the weapons I think.

As to the OP. You could make two handed piercing attacks cost an attack to pull the spear out. To balance that, allow them to drive it in further when hitting a single target letting them combine the damage of the multiple attacks for DR penetration.

[Shaofoo]

"Check out this awesome new feat, Shield Slapper. I can use a bonus attack to flip my shield around and whip my opponent with the straps! SLAP! In the FACE! So awesome."

"Wait, that doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone do that once, let alone every six seconds in every fight? It's not realistic at all."

"THERE ARE ORCS AND YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SHIELD STRAPS"

"^this"

"^^1000x this"

"^^^Bob says it all again, I agree with Bob"

"^^^^haha sigged"

This is so unrealistic.

More like

"Check out this awesome new feat, Shield Slapper. I can use a bonus attack to flip my shield around and whip my opponent with the straps! SLAP! In the FACE! So awesome."

(if op)

"WTF this is better than PAM and GWM combined, you should feel bad for making this"

(if not op)

*radio silence*

[Telwar]

And my issue (to add a voice with a bit of sympathy for the OP) has always been with the second sentence as an example of throwing out any attempt to distinguish between different levels or senses of "realism" - which, after all, most people are perfectly capable of.

Different levels of realism are fine. Personally, I stopped getting upset that something was unrealistic in a FRPG ages ago, and I'm not sure why people care about that, but different strokes, etc.

It's more the uneven effect on the players that bothers me. Maybe, for the OP's game, shades of Dangerous Journeys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Journeys), you have players roll prior to character creation for spellcasting ability? Say...Stat check DC 20 for a full caster (wizard, druid, cleric, bard, sorcerer), DC 16 for a partial caster (paladin, ranger, EK/AT), and anybody can sell their soul to be a warlock? Sure, that prevents someone who has their heart set on playing a wizard from playing one if they roll a 3, but that preserves the 'rare magic" feel.

Alternately, the OP might benefit from having lower level limits in a game, like stopping about 6 or so.

[Sabeta]

Level 20 fighters get 4 attacks per round. How would a fighter be doing that with a pike? Medieval pikes were up to 25 feet long, and in D&D they can only attack up to 10 feet away... a pike should not be able to attack something 5 feet away. It seems incredibly unrealistic to be able to attack a target 5 feet away with an 18 foot piercing weapon 4 times after moving 30 feet all in 6 seconds.

The fluff disagrees with the crunch. At least the lance has disadvantage 5 feet from the target.

Historically speaking, pikes were only used in tight formations with foot soldiers, never in what D&D calls regular combat - small, loose groups of adventurers taking on monsters.

As a Dm, should I allow multiple attacks with a pike? Should I allow pikes at all?

1) The Real World had no reason to try and balance weapons. Wizards of the Coast did
2) Just because the Pike is 25 feet long, does not mean that it can effectively target a creature 25 feet away.
2a) Seriously, imagine how one would hold a Pike in order to strike a foe even 15 feet away. It's certainly doable, but causes your center of gravity to shift too far forward, and that's dangerous.
2b) Also, several weapons in D&D are smaller than their real-world counterpart. Most Katana were 5-7 feet long, some going as far as 9. Greatswords were almost always longer than 6 feet, and Glaives, Spears, and the Japanese Naginata also tended to be in excess of 9-10 feet.
3) Likewise, the Lance has no means to be gripped farther than the handle. The Lance is also a "Special Weapon", and does not obey the rules limiting common weapons.
4) This is a world where a teacup can do as much damage as a Whip if you train properly. Where a Quarterstaff is more lethal than a Shortsword. Try not to think too hard about the implications of a guy swinging a heavy weapon with all his might in 4 times in 6 seconds. 8 times if he uses Action Surge.

[Strill]

A cantrip is at will, which is very powerful and does scale close to a fighter's attacks.

No it doesn't. Cantrips deal 1/2 to 1/3 of a Fighter's damage.

[R.Shackleford]

No it doesn't. Cantrips deal 1/2 to 1/3 of a Fighter's damage.

Between cherry picking the defense.

Dex, AC, or Con and doing so at range without the normal problems (ammo, cover (Con save or sacred flame, magical damage etc)... More than makes up for the damage difference.

Plus Eldritch Blast keeps up pretty well in damage, actually gets 4 attacks before the fighter does.

Cantrips may not do as much direct damage, but their versatility and ability to keep up with the game puts them miles ahead of fighter martial damage (which is one dimensional and subjugated to resistance and immunity more often).

[Tanarii]

No it doesn't. Cantrips deal 1/2 to 1/3 of a Fighter's damage.
End up doing. But yes, they scale from roughly comparable to a 1H weapon to roughly 1/2 a 1H weapon (assuming Dueling FS & no magic item) in the hands of a Fighter 20.

Edit: which makes sense. That's why casters get a long rest resource in spells. If Cantrips were more powerful than multiple attacks, Fighters wouldn't be balanced.

[Necroticplague]

I don't think that 4 attacks is, fluffwise, pulling the pike in and out 4 times. I think it just represent how your training lets you get more damage out of the thrust you do make. So you simply have one massive stab that your battlefield mastery lets you make possibly much more lethal than a less well-trained man.

[Tanarii]

I don't think that 4 attacks is, fluffwise, pulling the pike in and out 4 times. I think it just represent how your training lets you get more damage out of the thrust you do make. So you simply have one massive stab that your battlefield mastery lets you make possibly much more lethal than a less well-trained man.Except you can attack four different creatures by stabbing them one after the other.

I mean you can make it that way mechanically that by just ruling them technically one attack. No different targets, special abilities only proc of one attack, etc.

[R.Shackleford]

End up doing. But yes, they scale from roughly comparable to a 1H weapon to roughly 1/2 a 1H weapon (assuming Dueling FS & no magic item) in the hands of a Fighter 20.

Edit: which makes sense. That's why casters get a long rest resource in spells. If Cantrips were more powerful than multiple attacks, Fighters wouldn't be balanced.

Which is funny since the fighter isn't balanced anyways sooo you could give at-will damage to the casters and nothing will change.

[unwise]

When I was toying around with RL armed sparring, I got my butt kicked by somebody using an extra long naginata. It was basically like a smaller pike with a long blade on the spear head. The thing is it slapped me so fast, as a tiny movement at his end of the lever, was a huge movement at the business end. He was a strong bloke, but he made it look effortless. A tiny movement of his hands and the thing jumps three feet out the side and comes slapping back to get my with the blade.

That being said, I discourage pikes as a main weapon in my game, as they simply don't suit the life of an adventurer. Running, jumping, riding, heck even sitting down at a table, it would be annoying in pretty much every aspect. The player does not want the DM saying that they left their weapon outside the inn, leaning up against the wall, or that they cannot jump the chasm in the dungeon because having a pike on their back means they don't have the clearance etc. So give the player and the DM a break and choose another weapon for adventuring, leave the pike at home.

Personally I don't much care for realism in relation to level 20 characters. It seems rather arbitrary to call out Achilles or Hercules for unrealistic fighting styles when they are standing next to Saruman. If I were to be picky though, it would be about Pikes not getting disadvantage within 5-10'.

[darkdragoon]

The weapon terminology is rarely accurate, but for the most part doesn't matter.

10 yards can be done in a bit over a second, roughly. Attacks can be done very rapidly.

[R.Shackleford]

When I was toying around with RL armed sparring, I got my butt kicked by somebody using an extra long naginata. It was basically like a smaller pike with a long blade on the spear head. The thing is it slapped me so fast, as a tiny movement at his end of the lever, was a huge movement at the business end. He was a strong bloke, but he made it look effortless. A tiny movement of his hands and the thing jumps three feet out the side and comes slapping back to get my with the blade.

That being said, I discourage pikes as a main weapon in my game, as they simply don't suit the life of an adventurer. Running, jumping, riding, heck even sitting down at a table, it would be annoying in pretty much every aspect. The player does not want the DM saying that they left their weapon outside the inn, leaning up against the wall, or that they cannot jump the chasm in the dungeon because having a pike on their back means they don't have the clearance etc. So give the player and the DM a break and choose another weapon for adventuring, leave the pike at home.

Personally I don't much care for realism in relation to level 20 characters. It seems rather arbitrary to call out Achilles or Hercules for unrealistic fighting styles when they are standing next to Saruman. If I were to be picky though, it would be about Pikes not getting disadvantage within 5-10'.



Go all realistic US wild west, ban weapons when people are in towns (wild west had the strictest gun laws in US history)... no more awkward times with pikes in bars!

[Strill]

Between cherry picking the defense.

Dex, AC, or Con and doing so at range without the normal problems (ammo, cover (Con save or sacred flame, magical damage etc)... More than makes up for the damage difference.Did you forget that Fighters can use bows? Did you know that a +0 saving throw is equivalent to 14 AC, making most monsters saves more difficult to hit than their AC?

You're telling me that if I memorize the monster manual and know every enemy's AC and saves, and always choose the weak saving throw, that I'll get an effective +1 to +3 to hit, and this will more than double my average DPR? By that argument, a +1 sword more than compensates for any of this nonsense. Now just think of how much worse the comparison will be for cantrips if you manage to get a flametongue weapon.


Plus Eldritch Blast keeps up pretty well in damage, actually gets 4 attacks before the fighter does. Correction: Warlocks with Agonizing Blast keep up pretty well in damage.


Cantrips may not do as much direct damage, but their versatility and ability to keep up with the game puts them miles ahead of fighter martial damage (which is one dimensional and subjugated to resistance and immunity more often).Magic weapons are one of the best damage types in the game. They're second only to Radiant and Force damage, and not by a very big margin. Have you even looked at the distribution of resistances in the Monster Manual?

[Kryx]

Cantrips may not do as much direct damage, but their versatility and ability to keep up with the game puts them miles ahead of fighter martial damage (which is one dimensional and subjugated to resistance and immunity more often).
The conversation has moved passed this, but it's important to clarify just how bad cantrips are: They start out doing about 40% of a fighter's DPR, but by level 3 that drops to 30%. By 4 it's 25% and stays there until level 20. See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255).

EB averages about 85% of a Fighter GWM DPR.

Cantrips are great and I'm pleased with how they work in 5e, but no one should be under any illusion that cantrips have better damage than martials (which is how it should be because casters have spells to burst with).

[mgshamster]

Pikes are just so much longer than other reach weapons (halberds were around 6 feet) that I would give them 15 foot reach and... maybe 2d4 damage? Slightly less.

A pike is capable is killing a horse in a single hit when the horse is charging. A warhorse has 19 HP.

I think 2d6 would be better, so when it's set to receive a charge, it could auto-crit, giving it the potential to take down a charging horse in a single hit.

You could also treat it like a net, where you can only attack with it once per round.

Alternatively, you can treat the current PHB pike like a long spear when used normally and like a traditional pike when used to receive a charge. Just say, "when setting to receive a charge with a pike, you only get one attack, but if you hit it's an auto crit."

[Sniccups]

A pike is capable is killing a horse in a single hit when the horse is charging. A warhorse has 19 HP.

I think 2d6 would be better, so when it's set to receive a charge, it could auto-crit, giving it the potential to take down a charging horse in a single hit.

You could also treat it like a net, where you can only attack with it once per round.

Alternatively, you can treat the current PHB pike like a long spear when used normally and like a traditional pike when used to receive a charge. Just say, "when setting to receive a charge with a pike, you only get one attack, but if you hit it's an auto crit."

Here.

Pike
Two-handed, reach, heavy
Damage 1d10
Deals double damage if you do not move on your turn (setting for the charge)
5th level fighter gets to do this even when moving, but no 2nd attack
11th level fighter gets a 2nd attack
20th level fighter can deal double on 2nd attack

Same damage, but only 2 attack rolls and a setting for the charge mechanic!

[mgshamster]

Here.

Pike
Two-handed, reach, heavy
Damage 1d10
Deals double damage if you do not move on your turn (setting for the charge)
5th level fighter gets to do this even when moving, but no 2nd attack
11th level fighter gets a 2nd attack
20th level fighter can deal double on 2nd attack

Same damage, but only 2 attack rolls and a setting for the charge mechanic!

I like it. I also like that is specifically calls out the fighter, so it's something other martial classes can't do.

Is the double damage like a crit, where only the dice is doubled? Or does it also double any modifiers? Would it double other effects like a crit, such as sneak attack or smite damage?

[djreynolds]

Here.

Pike
Two-handed, reach, heavy
Damage 1d10
Deals double damage if you do not move on your turn (setting for the charge)
5th level fighter gets to do this even when moving, but no 2nd attack
11th level fighter gets a 2nd attack
20th level fighter can deal double on 2nd attack

Same damage, but only 2 attack rolls and a setting for the charge mechanic!

It looks and sounds good, pretty cool idea and the double damage when not moving is cool

but its too much 1E and too complicated to track it.

Honestly, its your game as DM, if it inhibits your suspension of disbelief, squash the weapon period.

No more pike, tell him to use a spear.

But in defense of all the other posters, a 20th level wizard has the wish spell.

[Kryx]

Double damage when not moving? That's ridiculously broken.

Polearm Master already has the "ready against a charge" in "While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach".

That models the desired "ready against a charge" far better than "double damage" does and it prevents any issues of being OP.

[mgshamster]

Double damage when not moving? That's ridiculously broken.

Polearm Master already has the "ready against a charge" in "While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach".

That models the desired "ready against a charge" far better than "double damage" does and it prevents any issues of being OP.

Eh - I'm not a fan of needing a feat to be able to set to receive a charge - that's a highly specific scenario that's not likely to come up too often. To reduce the abuse, just change it from "not moving" to "setting to receive a charge."

[smcmike]

Eh - I'm not a fan of needing a feat to be able to set to receive a charge - that's a highly specific scenario that's not likely to come up too often. To reduce the abuse, just change it from "not moving" to "setting to receive a charge."

Yeah, double damage for setting to receive a charge - which would be a readied action.

[Kryx]

If you don't want it based on a feat then take the feature out of the feat and apply it to the weapon inherently. I did so.

Let me illustrate the problem with the current scenario:
My turn: "My turn? Ok, I'm setting to receive a charge and I attack the guy 1 square away and all damage is doubled."

Doubling damage on your turn fit the flavor of "setting to receive a charge", it's just doubles damage!

Not to mention all the finnicky "at this level, you can actually use your class features, oh you're a fighter? Sorry this weapon is for Barbarians as they only get 2 attacks which are equivalent to your 4 attacks, of which you can only take 2".

[R.Shackleford]

The conversation has moved passed this, but it's important to clarify just how bad cantrips are: They start out doing about 40% of a fighter's DPR, but by level 3 that drops to 30%. By 4 it's 25% and stays there until level 20. See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255).

EB averages about 85% of a Fighter GWM DPR.

Cantrips are great and I'm pleased with how they work in 5e, but no one should be under any illusion that cantrips have better damage than martials (which is how it should be because casters have spells to burst with).

They have better damage, not more damage.

Though you could give them the same amount of damage (or more) than a martial and things wouldn't really change.

And EB comes online 3 levels earlier for that 4th attack, which is a ranged magical force damage versus non-magical B/P/S damage.

The fighter however is swinging a sword and has to hope that they aren't going up against something with resistance or immunity to non-magical damage. Sure you can get some help from outside the class, but then we aren't talking about class v class now are we.

Bu keeping it in normal levels of the game, 1 - 8, you can find plenty of creatures that have resistance to non-magical weapons. My personal favorite right now is the Scarecrows (CR 1 or 2 I think).

Also, cantrip damage typically comes with rider effects which can shut down/mess up creatures quite well. Being able to put riders on your damage makes for better quality damage. Giving a reature disadvantage on attacks, lowering their speed, pushing them, or damaging multiple creatures can help a lot.

As they say, Quality Over Quantity.

[Kryx]

They have better damage, not more damage.
Wut.. I don't understand your argument at all. Cantrips, especially non-EB cantrips, don't compare to martials in terms of damage. There is some very minor utility, but the argument above was that cantrips do more than martials which is absolutely not true.

[mgshamster]

If you don't want it based on a feat then take the feature out of the feat and apply it to the weapon inherently. I did so.

There's a difference between charging and "anyone who comes within your reach."

That feat works just fine for getting an OA to anyone who comes within your reach. But I don't like it if that's the *only* way to gain an advantage when setting to receive a charge.

They're two different things.


Let me illustrate the problem with the current scenario:
My turn: "My turn? Ok, I'm setting to receive a charge and I attack the guy 1 square away and all damage is doubled."

Did that guy 1 square away charge? If no, then it doesn't work. More specifically, this is meant to be against mounts, not people. That's what a pike line is for. The OP specifically asked for a bit more realism and I'm trying to help him find a way to get it without detracting from martial classes.

When used against mounts, we might be able to look at some actual mechanics. For example, the Warhorse has a Trampling Charge ability. As this is 5e and we want to be flexible, we can also say that other mounts can "charge" as well, allowing this to be used against them without a feat.

If we set it as a readied action, you'd only get a single attack no matter how many extra attacks you have.


Not to mention all the finnicky "at this level, you can actually use your class features, oh you're a fighter? Sorry this weapon is for Barbarians as they only get 2 attacks which are equivalent to your 4 attacks, of which you can only take 2".

The finnickiness can stay or go. My original suggestion, in different words, was to just add on to the standard pike weapon: "If you set to receive a charge, you can double damage the damage with this weapon." When used as part of a readied action, it can work nicely.

This is a work in process - think you can try to find a way to make it work for the OP?

[R.Shackleford]

Wut.. I don't understand your argument at all. Cantrips, especially non-EB cantrips, don't compare to martials in terms of damage. There is some very minor utility, but the argument above was that cantrips do more than martials which is absolutely not true.

Quality over quantity

Higher numbers don't mean a thing unless those higher numbers are so absurdly high and what you are comparing it to doesn't have anything else going for it.

A basic example with example numbers


Creature A (many)
HP = 20

Creature B (Boss)
HP = 50

Average damage
Martial Damage 15

Cantrip Damage 10

Through the course of the day the martial character will do more damage. However when fighting a bunch of Creature A, that extra damage is wasted. Each time the martial kills a creature it takes two hits. There is 10 HP that goes over A's total HP, but enemies only go to 0 HP so that "more damage" doesn't exist. The caster does less damage, but still can kill the creature in two its. But, this caster's damage has riders (push, no reaction, disadvantage on attacks, etc) and is magical (so if this creature has resistance it will ignore it).

So throughout the day, on average, both are doing the same amount of effective damage of 20 damage to each creature they target twice because any damage over that doesn't get counted due to it not helping at all. Doing 100000000 points of damage to creature A still means you dealt 20 damage due to the rest not actually doing anything. Creature A dies at 20, the rest of that damage means nothing.

So what matters is how many hits does it take to kill an enemy, not your actual average damage. Specific numbers don't matter unless it takes you from 2 hits to 3 hits or 2 hits to 4 hits.

And even then going from 2 hits to 3 hits isn't a big deal when you have all this other stuff you can do and the riders you have with your cantrips.


Specifically DPR, when compared from one PC to another, doesn't matter.

If cantrip damage is 80% of Martial damage BUT they both kill creatures in one or two hits... Their Actual DPR is essentially the same.


Edit

Overkill means nothing in this game.

Also, you can't deal 100 damage to a creature that has 5 HP, you can only deal 5 HP worth of damage to that creature.

Now the rest could technically be applied to the object the creature becomes but not to the creature.

[Kryx]

Did that guy 1 square away charge? If no, then it doesn't work.
Charging is not a mechanic in 5e.
I was responding to how the mechanic is currently worded: "Deals double damage if you do not move on your turn (setting for the charge)". That is abused as I outlined above and does not accomplish the desired flavor.


The finnickiness can stay or go. My original suggestion, in different words, was to just add on to the standard pike weapon: "If you set to receive a charge, you can double damage the damage with this weapon." When used as part of a readied action, it can work nicely.
That is very different than the part I'm replying to. Though it doesn't adhere to 5e wording.
"When you ready an action to make a melee weapon attack with this weapon against a creature who enters your reach, that attack deals double damage" would be more in line with 5e. Even then double damage should be an auto crit imo - that's more in line with 5e.



@RShackleford: Non-EB Cantrip damage is not 80% of martials, please do not purposefully change the numbers to benefit your view.
I provided the numbers (about 25% of martial damage, or 33% for evo wiz/dragon sorc - see DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255)) and the spreadsheet above for people to make their own opinions, but martials (rightfully so) deal far more damage than Cantrip casters do.
At 6th level a GWM fighter does 29 DPR. A Cantrip caster does 7 DPR. No matter how you try to spin overkill or say that DPR doesn't matter that will have an astounding difference in play.

[Knaight]

This has always been my issue with this argument.

I mean, if we want realism than every spell-caster is just a rogue with sleight of hand and performance expertise.

Which to be honest could make a very interesting system.


And my issue (to add a voice with a bit of sympathy for the OP) has always been with the second sentence as an example of throwing out any attempt to distinguish between different levels or senses of "realism" - which, after all, most people are perfectly capable of.
Thank you. As I've said repeatedly, the inclusion of one fantastic thing somewhere doesn't mean that all realism has to be instantly thrown out the window.


1) The Real World had no reason to try and balance weapons. Wizards of the Coast did
2) Just because the Pike is 25 feet long, does not mean that it can effectively target a creature 25 feet away.
2a) Seriously, imagine how one would hold a Pike in order to strike a foe even 15 feet away. It's certainly doable, but causes your center of gravity to shift too far forward, and that's dangerous.
2b) Also, several weapons in D&D are smaller than their real-world counterpart. Most Katana were 5-7 feet long, some going as far as 9. Greatswords were almost always longer than 6 feet, and Glaives, Spears, and the Japanese Naginata also tended to be in excess of 9-10 feet.
3) Likewise, the Lance has no means to be gripped farther than the handle. The Lance is also a "Special Weapon", and does not obey the rules limiting common weapons.
4) This is a world where a teacup can do as much damage as a Whip if you train properly. Where a Quarterstaff is more lethal than a Shortsword. Try not to think too hard about the implications of a guy swinging a heavy weapon with all his might in 4 times in 6 seconds. 8 times if he uses Action Surge.
Just about all of this is wrong. Pikes were held at one end (yes, you had to use a pretty wide grip, but that doesn't mean that they weren't useful at a range equal to their length), and the idea that a 25 foot pike is too short to target someone 15 feet away is ludicrous - even braced against a foot they have much more reach than that. Take a look at any number of paintings involving pikes in warfare, and look at how they are uniformly portrayed as held at one end or braced. As for the size of real world counterparts, you're overestimating the size of just about everything listed. Most katana were well under 5', plenty were under 4'. The historical longsword (which D&D labels a greatsword) varied in length, with 6' on the upper end and lower ends closer to 4.5'. Spears in the 6'-8' range were routine, and while they did get longer than that heavier polearms generally didn't.

[R.Shackleford]

At 6th level a GWM fighter does 29 DPR. A Cantrip caster does 7 DPR. No matter how you try to spin overkill or say that DPR doesn't matter that will have an astounding difference in play.

I wasn't saying anything of "this is exactly what things are", please step off your high horse.

Please don't do this, what I bolded is a bold face lie.

At 6th level a cantrip, for a damage based caster say the Warlock, deals 2d10+ Cha + Cha. For a sorcerer that is (firebolt) 2d10+Cha, but if you are using the best martial damage dealer (or at least one of them) we should do the same for cantrips.

At level 6 the warlock will probably have a +4 Cha (as most people will have a +4 main stat)

6.5, 6.5, + 4, +4, plus push 10', plus push 10 = 21 damage +20' of push.

21 is about 73% of 29. And even if it isn't 21 > 7 DPR

It is straight up hilarious that you want to use damage builds and compare them to non damage builds. The thing about magic damage builds is that they can do damage and do other things.


Edit

Oh, and might I add, the Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard base cantrip damage is using No Optional Rules whereas GWM is a feat.

[Kryx]

Oh come on, you clearly didn't even read my post. Let me quote it for you:

Non-EB Cantrip damage is not 80% of martials, please do not purposefully change the numbers to benefit your view.


At 6th level a cantrip, for a damage based caster say the Warlock, deals 2d10+ Cha + Cha.

Oh, that's an EB cantrip caster? Ya, as I pointed out above that does 80% of a GWM fighter.

Cantrip casters - as in Bard Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard do 25% of a GWM fighter or less (Cleric, Bard, and Druid).
Feats are a part of the game for the vast majority of people who post on this forum, but even without them a Barbarian for example is doing 21 DPR at level 6. That means Cantrips are still 33% of martial damage. Similar numbers would be obtained from Fighter, Paladin, etc.

Please read posts.

[mgshamster]

Charging is not a mechanic in 5e.

I posted, in that exact same post, an example of a charge mechanic in 5e. So, please take your own advice:


Oh come on, you clearly didn't even read my post.

Please read posts.

If you're going to get high and mighty over others, don't be hypocritical with your own actions.


That is very different than the part I'm replying to. Though it doesn't adhere to 5e wording.
"When you ready an action to make a melee weapon attack with this weapon against a creature who enters your reach, that attack deals double damage" would be more in line with 5e. Even then double damage should be an auto crit imo - that's more in line with 5e.

I agree - crit would fit better than simply saying double damage. That's also something I mentioned previously. It's also why I asked sniccups for clarification on the double damage part.

But I don't like the "against anyone who enters your reach" part. That doesn't fit the idea of a pike line. Pikes weren't meant to be set up for just anyone running or even walking towards you. They were meant to be against a charging mount. So, as I said, the rule could be used against a warhorse's charge, or even a boar's charge. And for animals and mounts that don't have a charge mechanic, the OP will likey set something up. I know I would. Since this is something one of my players would use, as a GM I'd just say, "the mounted soldier is charging you." It works for the purposes of the game and doesn't even require a specific mechanic.

[Cazero]

But I don't like the "against anyone who enters your reach" part. That doesn't fit the idea of a pike line. Pikes weren't meant to be set up for just anyone running or even walking towards you.
D&D mechanics are simply unfit for tight formations. See also : conga line abuse. If you want pikes to work more like real life, you need two things.

One, superior reach. This allows to take initiative by readying an attack and it needs to be better than a lance reach to be effective.
The average pikeman is not a heroic fighter with several levels under his belt and martial specialisation into reach weapons. The average pikeman is a dude with one attack and 15 STR tops. He doesn't lose any DPR or tactical possibilities by readying because he has no fancy class features to make him stronger on his turn and is standing in a pikewall that has nothing better to do than wait for a charge to happen.

Two, a complete redesign of the entire HP/damage calculations. Seriously, even giving the pikeman an automatic hit and 30 STR for receiving a charge, he isn't guaranteed to kill a random warhorse in one hit. We're not talking plot-armor HP here, we're talking about a random horse. D&D mechanics and attacks that should kill in one hit simply don't work together.

[Necroticplague]

Except you can attack four different creatures by stabbing them one after the other.

I mean you can make it that way mechanically that by just ruling them technically one attack. No different targets, special abilities only proc of one attack, etc.

In that case, you swing the pike to hit several. Attacks in DnD are very heavily abstracted, so you can mod it to whatever fits best.

[Strill]

I wasn't saying anything of "this is exactly what things are", please step off your high horse.

Please don't do this, what I bolded is a bold face lie.

...

Oh, and might I add, the Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard base cantrip damage is using No Optional Rules whereas GWM is a feat.

If you're trying to confuse the issue by pretending that Warlock damage is anywhere close to Wizard and Sorcerer damage, then you're the liar. We've said from the start that Warlocks with Agonizing Blast do damage close to that of the Fighter. For every other cantrip class, including Wizard and Sorcerer, what he said was absolutely true. Cantrips do about 1/4th of a Fighter's damage.

[Malifice]

This thread makes me sad. It sorta exemplifies everything thats wrong with our hobby.

Who cares? 4 attack rolls isnt necesarily 4 discrete attacks, just like 1 attack roll isnt the same fighter sitting there for six seconds and stabbing you the once (its more likely a representation of several parries, thrusts and ripostes, and both combatants warily pacing around each other, with one possible attack). 4 'attacks' with a Pike as a routine thing is only really possible by a 20th level Fighter (a literal God of War like Achillies or Hercules, or Lancelot). It can just as easily be 4 rolls that represent a single deadly thrust, or whatever the heck you want it to represent.

Use your imaginations people, stop fretting over stupid things like this, and enjoy the game.

But carry on.

[Knaight]

This thread makes me sad. It sorta exemplifies everything thats wrong with our hobby.

Who cares? 4 attack rolls isnt necesarily 4 discrete attacks, just like 1 attack roll isnt the same fighter sitting there for six seconds and stabbing you the once (its more likely a representation of several parries, thrusts and ripostes, and both combatants warily pacing around each other, with one possible attack). 4 'attacks' with a Pike as a routine thing is only really possible by a 20th level Fighter (a literal God of War like Achillies or Hercules, or Lancelot). It can just as easily be 4 rolls that represent a single deadly thrust, or whatever the heck you want it to represent.

Use your imaginations people, stop fretting over stupid things like this, and enjoy the game.

There are literally tens of thousands of games to choose from, and we can all afford to be choosy and not just take mechanical irritations in stride - whether that's 1 attack roll per 6 seconds being a sluggish way to do combat coupled with a general distaste of the HP system, or the misguided belief that 4 attacks in 6 seconds is some sort of superhuman feat.

[Kryx]

I posted, in that exact same post, an example of a charge mechanic in 5e
I read your post. There are some monster features that include the name "charge", but that is not a mechanic you could trigger off of. You would have to create some fancy wording "When a creature uses a feature with the name Charge in it", but that's rather silly.


But I don't like the "against anyone who enters your reach" part. That doesn't fit the idea of a pike line. Pikes weren't meant to be set up for just anyone running or even walking towards you.
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_(weapon) which barely mentions horses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_square mentions horses a few times, but a horse charging at you is by no means the only way to fight with a pike.

"against a creature who enters your reach" applies to horses or other creatures who move toward you. A pike was used for both situations.

[mgshamster]

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_(weapon) which barely mentions horses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_square mentions horses a few times, but a horse charging at you is by no means the only way to fight with a pike.

What are you talking about? Those links are rife with examples of using pikes for mounted defense. According to those articles, using it against a mounted charge was the primary use for pikes, with other techniques being developed with intense training and effort over time.

Did you just do a search for "horse" and determine that it barely mentioned it? Try also looking for "mount," "cavalry," "Knights," and other common references to mounted charges. Or, you know, actually read it.

I agree that it's not the *only* way to fight with a pike, which is why I've been saying to keep the pike as it is for normal combat - only add on an auto crit (or "double damage") if you hit when setting to receive a charge against mounted combat. We don't even have to come up with a mechanic in game for a mounted charge - just play it by ear and make a ruling for it in game. It ain't that difficult. It's how most of 5e works anyways.

[Kryx]

So, you're choosing to ignore the part about pikes being used against things other than mounted beasts?

I think we're in the same situation as when we started: imo the wording of polearm master already covers the entire desire of the OP: "When you are wielding a ... pike ..., other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach."

This covers beasts and other creatures as pikes have always been used for. If you don't want to use PAM then make it an inherent weapon property.

[mgshamster]

So, you're choosing to ignore the part about pikes being used against things other than mounted beasts?

I think we're in the same situation as when we started: imo the wording of polearm master already covers the entire desire of the OP: "When you are wielding a ... pike ..., other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach."

This covers beasts and other creatures as pikes have always been used for. If you don't want to use PAM then make it an inherent weapon property.

I'm editing this post to be less aggressive, and I'm going to apologize for any aggressiveness I've giving towards you so far. I think that, by stepping back, we can come to an agreement on what works best.

For me, I don't like the idea of needing a feat to make the weapon more effective against cavalry. I also like the idea that anyone trained in its use can pick it up and use it with extra effectiveness against a creature than can't or doesn't know to get out of the way of a sharp point when running full tilt - like a horse/mount/boar or some thing similar.

I like the idea of using the feat for all other purposes. I like the idea of using the pike as a typical weapon against infantry or other foes.

I also like the idea of adding on an auto crit if it hits for when it's used against a mounted charge.

I understand that it may be used inappropriately at times if someone is trying to game the system instead of using some basic common sense and following the spirit of the mechanic - and in those cases, I believe I can handle it at my table. Who knows, maybe one of my players comes up with a really good idea to use it in a novel fashion that would also allow the auto crit to apply. That'd be really cool!

For me, this works. If you don't like it, then don't use it - that's the true spirit of 5e! And I think we can all agree on that. :)

[Sniccups]

Sorry about my last one; the level advancement was only for fighters.

I have taken everyone's suggestions and built this:

Pike
2d4 piercing damage, reach 15 ft., heavy, 2 hands.
You may use your action to brace the pike for the rest of the round. Until your next turn, your opportunity attacks deal an extra 2d4 damage.
If you attack normally, you may attack as many times as you can with any other weapon, but only against up to 2 different targets.

[Kryx]

Pike
2d4 piercing damage, reach 15 ft., heavy, 2 hands.
You may use your action to brace the pike for the rest of the round. Until your next turn, your opportunity attacks deal an extra 2d4 damage.
If you attack normally, you may attack as many times as you can with any other weapon, but only against up to 2 different targets.
2d4 is pretty low damage compared to the other polearms. It's .5 mroe damag than a longsword. Should be 1d10.

Action to brace sounds fine. "only up to 2 targets" would probably apply on a lot more weapons if you really want to stick to the realism route. I wouldn't. It pretty much only nerfs fighters.

[Sir cryosin]

Think about this way attacking with a heavy weapon like a pike, Lance or mauls. The characters are not swings or stabbing 4 times the 4 attack rolls show how much damage is done. So like you attack with a pike you go to stab someone you roll all your attacks and only one hits. What that 6 seconds in real time you thrust your pike at the enemy and put a nasty cut on his upper arm. Now next turn you make all 4 attacks and all of them hit. So now you thrust again hitting the Soldier in the belly or shoulder or any spot were some on can get hurt but not straight out kill them. That's how I see multiple attack rolls with a heavy weapon like that. Now for one-handed weapons like swords or maces or axes it would be somewhat feasible to get 4 strikes in within 6 seconds.

[mgshamster]

Think about this way attacking with a heavy weapon like a pike, Lance or mauls. The characters are not swings or stabbing 4 times the 4 attack rolls show how much damage is done. So like you attack with a pike you go to stab someone you roll all your attacks and only one hits. What that 6 seconds in real time you thrust your pike at the enemy and put a nasty cut on his upper arm. Now next turn you make all 4 attacks and all of them hit. So now you thrust again hitting the Soldier in the belly or shoulder or any spot were some on can get hurt but not straight out kill them. That's how I see multiple attack rolls with a heavy weapon like that. Now for one-handed weapons like swords or maces or axes it would be somewhat feasible to get 4 strikes in within 6 seconds.

How would you explain hitting 4 different people up to [movement speed] away from each other?

[Malifice]

There are literally tens of thousands of games to choose from, and we can all afford to be choosy and not just take mechanical irritations in stride - whether that's 1 attack roll per 6 seconds being a sluggish way to do combat coupled with a general distaste of the HP system, or the misguided belief that 4 attacks in 6 seconds is some sort of superhuman feat.

How do dice rolls in the real world translate into what your imaginary PC is doing?

An 'attack roll' is supposed to represent nothing more than 'attack potential'. Four rolls can = one almighty attack. One roll can = several thrusts and parries, with only a single good one.

Combat is abstract. Hit points are abstract. Armor class is abstract. Attack rolls are abstract.

Crap, even a 'hit' on the D20 might not actually hit (your target might dodge at the last second - losing hit points - or parry your blow - losing hit points - or it glances off his armor knocking the wind out of him - losing hit points etc).

If you want to narrate your 4 x attack rolls as one sweep of the Pike against 4 targets, or one deadly thrust against the one target, go for it. It doesnt need any rule changes or anything else other than imagination.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

How do dice rolls in the real world translate into what your imaginary PC is doing?

An 'attack roll' is supposed to represent nothing more than 'attack potential'. Four rolls can = one almighty attack. One roll can = several thrusts and parries, with only a single good one.

Combat is abstract. Hit points are abstract. Armor class is abstract. Attack rolls are abstract.

Crap, even a 'hit' on the D20 might not actually hit (your target might dodge at the last second - losing hit points - or parry your blow - losing hit points - or it glances off his armor knocking the wind out of him - losing hit points etc).

If you want to narrate your 4 x attack rolls as one sweep of the Pike against 4 targets, or one deadly thrust against the one target, go for it. It doesnt need any rule changes or anything else other than imagination.You're kinda playing into Knaight's general point, though. If I want to abstract attacks and HP that much, because I can just "use my imagination" for the specifics, why not ditch all the meaningless extra rolling and play Dungeon World instead? The answer has to be that I want a less abstracted/dissociated representation of combat within the rules... or I just like rolling dice for its own sake, I guess.

[Malifice]

You're kinda playing into Knaight's general point, though. If I want to abstract attacks and HP that much, because I can just "use my imagination" for the specifics, why not ditch all the meaningless extra rolling and play Dungeon World instead? The answer has to be that I want a less abstracted/dissociated representation of combat within the rules... or I just like rolling dice for its own sake, I guess.

But is adding or subtracting more dice rolling simulating anything in the game better? Is it simulating anything better by adding a complex network of dice rolling any better than simply narrating what the rolls actually represent in the fantasy universe the Fighter lives in?

Whether its one dice roll simulating four 'attacks' or four dice rolls simulating one 'attack', neither is a better simulation. Youre just rolling more (or less) dice to resolve something that has nothing to do with dice in the first place.

With the game as written those 4 dice rolls from a near epic level Fighter are his awesome ability to engage 4 foes at once with a pike. Four rolls vs One target is his ability to drive the Pike into the critter so hard it'll do enough damage to fell an elephant.

If he action surges at gets 8 attacks, this represents him vaulting into the air Achillies style, before plunging down from the heavens like a meteor and driving that Pike into his opponent hard enough to stop a T-Rex dead in its tracks, enabling the Fighter ample time to get back to the Tavern in time for ale, and to flirt with the hot Tavern Wench in the corner.

Or it can represent whatever you want it to.

[djreynolds]

Heck Achilles, a 20th level fighter might be more like Mars/Ares maybe.

You have to let it go. A round is just a round, 6 seconds or real however long it needs to be.

A 300lb plus defensive tackle can run a 40 yards dash, 120ft, in under 5 seconds. He is no rogue.

Watch the NFL combine if want to see huge hulking individuals doing impossible stuff.

Your 20th level PCs are the stuff of legend, they are Daniel Boone jumping the Mississippi. They have to be, or they are Djreynolds the Murse, a measly NPC without a level.

Olympic runners sprint 100 meters, roughly 300ft under 10 seconds. No magic. Your fighters are Olympians in their abilities, if not they are just their to lug around spell books.

Could I attack, move, attack, move, attack, move, attack... no, not without dying of Cardiac Arrest just picking up the pike. Can some guy on youtube, no.

But a professional athlete could... really. That is your martial types at 20th level, what they do is impossible, what they do looks like magic to us normal folk.

[Vogonjeltz]

Level 20 fighters get 4 attacks per round. How would a fighter be doing that with a pike? Medieval pikes were up to 25 feet long, and in D&D they can only attack up to 10 feet away... a pike should not be able to attack something 5 feet away. It seems incredibly unrealistic to be able to attack a target 5 feet away with an 18 foot piercing weapon 4 times after moving 30 feet all in 6 seconds.

The fluff disagrees with the crunch. At least the lance has disadvantage 5 feet from the target.

Historically speaking, pikes were only used in tight formations with foot soldiers, never in what D&D calls regular combat - small, loose groups of adventurers taking on monsters.

As a Dm, should I allow multiple attacks with a pike? Should I allow pikes at all?

Combat is simultaneous movement, with all participants constantly seeking to attack/defend.

It's just game mechanics, you're overthinking it. The pike fills a unique particular role (piercing, reach, 1d10, two-handed).

That's all there is to it. And because the distinguishable weapon mechanics are the important part of the concept, fiddling with it would be a bad idea.