Attaching long sword till a pole?

[Vasporos]

Hello, back again with something I've been wondering. My level three barbarian is soon coming upon level four and after some consideration am considering polearm master to have a consistent bonus action.

The problem is that I've read that there exists almost no magical polearms in the game unless fluffed as such, the only magic weapon we have found is a +1 long sword that the warrior passed on and I accepted.

Would it be possible for my character to attach said sword in a pole? Via some survival skill check or have an armorer attach it? Would that be feasible? Thoughts please, thanks. I know speaking to my DM is essential but I was going to get an idea of how to pitch the idea if it's considered feasible.

[qube]

Oi ... err ... lets see ...

Rules as written: no

Reality: (a.k.a. can you make a poleparm of a longsword) ... err ... yes, but I wouldn't say survival - you need decent crafting skills. You could make a longsword variant of the Nagamaki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagamaki)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-r3bSZAS-B_Y/TdoyWjq00DI/AAAAAAAAAzk/q12N_41NCMo/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/nagamaki+%2528naginata%2529..jpg

[Unoriginal]

The problem is that I've read that there exists almost no magical polearms in the game unless fluffed as such, the only magic weapon we have found is a +1 long sword that the warrior passed on and I accepted.

From the DMG:


WEAPON, +1, +2, OR +3 Weapon (any), uncommon (+1), rare (+2), or very rare (+3)
You have a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity.

So no, you might find a magic polearm

[PloxBox]

That seems... feasible? An issue i see right off the bat is that the long sword is designed and balanced around one handed or two handed use via the hilt, whereas a glaive (the most comparable weapon) is designed to work via a shaft. Trying to just attach a long sword to a shaft might work a small number of times, in my book.

A second issue i see is that the long sword portion would be magical, but not the shaft. So that's something to keep in mind.

Imo, you're better off taking shield master of you want to use your bonus action. Shields are a hell of a lot easier to get/make, and compliments a long sword nicely.

[Vasporos]

Good valid points. What if an armorer/smith would do it?

Shield master isn't a bad option, could save the BM fighter some superior dice.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

I agree with unoriginal. There are tons of ways to get a magical pole arm because of +x weapons. One of my characters had a halberd of warning which was awesome.

But perhaps more importantly, strapping a longsword to a stick is absurd. That's like a person 2000 years in the future trying to remove a monitor from a laptop to use the rest of the laptop as a hard drive. I suppose in theory, it is like a hard drive but... It's inconvenient, unwieldy, and totally unusable in a practical situation

[willdaBEAST]

As others are pointing out, I don't think it makes physical sense to strap a long sword to a pole. The balance would make the weapon awkward, even a short sword on a pole would likely be hard to wield. What's the DnD definition of length for a long sword? All I'm finding is weight of 3 lbs. In real life just the blades of long swords tend to be about 3 ft to just over 3 1/2 ft. You'll notice that most pole arms with a blade that long tend to have a single edge. Even guandao or naginata blades don't seem to approach 3 ft.

[Sigreid]

That seems... feasible? An issue i see right off the bat is that the long sword is designed and balanced around one handed or two handed use via the hilt, whereas a glaive (the most comparable weapon) is designed to work via a shaft. Trying to just attach a long sword to a shaft might work a small number of times, in my book.

A second issue i see is that the long sword portion would be magical, but not the shaft. So that's something to keep in mind.

Imo, you're better off taking shield master of you want to use your bonus action. Shields are a hell of a lot easier to get/make, and compliments a long sword nicely.

Actually, depending on the style of craftsmanship it may be as simple as unscrewing the pummel and sliding the grip and cross bar off. Now you have a magic blade and tang ready for a proper mounting.

[Laserlight]

The problem is that I've read that there exists almost no magical polearms in the game unless fluffed as such.

Is there a reason you wouldn't just ask your DM to refluff?

[Tanarii]

Actually, depending on the style of craftsmanship it may be as simple as unscrewing the pummel and sliding the grip and cross bar off. Now you have a magic blade and tang ready for a proper mounting.
Now you have 3 non-magical pieces that used to be a magic item.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There really aren't rules for any of this, so the answer is inevitably going to be "ask your GM." Which, hopefully, will give you an answer somewhere on a spectrum of "hell yeah, that sounds b****ing!" to "no, but I'll keep your preference in mind for later rewards."


Now you have 3 non-magical pieces that used to be a magic item.
Arguably. I'd call it entirely plausible-- you're not destroying it any more than unscrewing a jar is destroying that.

[Tanarii]

Arguably. I'd call it entirely plausible-- you're not destroying it any more than unscrewing a jar is destroying that.
If you unscrew a jar, you let the bugs out.

See my point? :smallbiggrin:

[Grod_The_Giant]

If you unscrew a jar, you let the bugs out.

See my point? :smallbiggrin:
Magic swords are full of bugs?

[ThurlRavenscrof]

Jars a vessel for bugs
Weapons a vessel for magic

[qube]

Good valid points. What if an armorer/smith would do it?that would be an excelent solution (at that time, it's back in the hands of the DM, who will ble able to tell you if the smith is able to do it or not -- a.k.a. if he (the DM) will allow it or not (ref to it not being in the rules as writen) )


Is there a reason you wouldn't just ask your DM to refluff?
The problem that they already have a sword. Not all DMs go *poof* the sword you just got transformes in a polearm ... just because.


Jars a vessel for bugs
Weapons a vessel for magic
I don't think magic weapons work like that (for the simple reasons that I don't think they lose all their magic when you change the wrappings). YMMV though

[Sigreid]

Jars a vessel for bugs
Weapons a vessel for magic

That's a pretty cheap magic sword if you can disenchant it so easily.

[Tanarii]

Jars a vessel for bugs
Weapons a vessel for magiclol I'm surprised anyone got the point at all I was being deliberately vague.

Of course, it depends on a specific view on what happens when you break a magic item.


That's a pretty cheap magic sword if you can disenchant it so easily.
Correction: It's a pretty cheap magic sword if you can break it so easily.

Destroying the enchantment when you break it is fairly reasonable. Not a required view obviously, unless I've missed something in the RAW, obviously. If a DM wants the shards of Narsil to be an effective magic weapon before its reformed into Anduril ...

[Mellack]

Correction: It's a pretty cheap magic sword if you can break it so easily.

Destroying the enchantment when you break it is fairly reasonable. Not a required view obviously, unless I've missed something in the RAW, obviously. If a DM wants the shards of Narsil to be an effective magic weapon before its reformed into Anduril ...

Swords, at least Japanese ones, were built to fairly simply disassemble into its pieces for replacement of the handle or just cleaning. I see no reason a magical blade would be different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1ENe07nHDM

[Tanarii]

Swords, at least Japanese ones, were built to fairly simply disassemble into its pieces for replacement of the handle or just cleaning. I see no reason a magical blade would be different.Because it's not a non-magical weapon, and the owner wants it to retain its magical enchantment?

I'm fully aware this is a circular argument. :smallbiggrin: I just see no reason to assume that a magical weapon can be disassembled easily. It's a super tough hard to destroy magical item! Nor that if it is, it should retain its enchantment.

[Sigreid]

Swords, at least Japanese ones, were built to fairly simply disassemble into its pieces for replacement of the handle or just cleaning. I see no reason a magical blade would be different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1ENe07nHDM

Many, but not all European ones come apart differently, but easily. for my rapier as an example, you literally just unscrew the pummel and you can separate the pieces, clean/oil it properly and then put it back together.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Because it's not a non-magical weapon, and the owner wants it to retain its magical enchantment?

I'm fully aware this is a circular argument. :smallbiggrin: I just see no reason to assume that a magical weapon can be disassembled easily. It's a super tough hard to destroy magical item! Nor that if it is, it should retain its enchantment.
If weapons that can be disassembled are a thing in that particular setting (as, apparently, was sometimes the case in real life), I find it odd to assume that doing so would instantly destroy the item's magic. Wouldn't you expect the magic to work with the construction of the sword, rather than against it? It feels kind of like saying that if you de-string a magic bow, it's no longer magical.

[War_lord]

Because it's not a non-magical weapon, and the owner wants it to retain its magical enchantment?

I'm fully aware this is a circular argument. :smallbiggrin: I just see no reason to assume that a magical weapon can be disassembled easily. It's a super tough hard to destroy magical item! Nor that if it is, it should retain its enchantment.

You actually know how real swords are constructed right? They're not one solid lump of metal. The blade ends in a tang inside the handle, the handle and crossguard (and sometimes the pommel, depending on the sword, some swords have a peened tang) are actually separate pieces. Any half decent swordsmith could remove the crossguard and handle of a sword without damaging it, and then it's basically ready for conversion into a polearm.

[Laserlight]

I've got a couple of knives that were forged as one piece, or a kukhri with a wide tang, a piece of wood glued to each side, then all wrapped with tape, but most of them have a tang and a separate hilt. I don't recall having seen a sword where you couldn't take the wood off the tang.

[qube]

Many, but not all European ones come apart differently, but easily. for my rapier as an example, you literally just unscrew the pummel and you can separate the pieces, clean/oil it properly and then put it back together.

And, of course, as we all know, it's also handy if you want to end thine opponent rightly ...

[Basement Cat]

Ask your DM if the sword's pommel and grip can be removed--historically both are separate but D&D isn't always historically accurate :smalltongue:

Seriously though--the blade is the sword. As for the guard, grip, pommel--these are added after the forging and were often changed out when needed.


A long sword's blade which extends to a full tang. If you can remove the pommel, grip, and guard then a capable craftsman should be able to firmly secure the blade into a good and strong pole the same as a naginata's blade.

Voila! You have your magic polearm. :smallsmile:

Balance won't be an issue--the pommel exists to balance out the weight of the blade. By sticking the blade into a pole balance becomes a non-issue.

[scalyfreak]

If weapons that can be disassembled are a thing in that particular setting (as, apparently, was sometimes the case in real life), I find it odd to assume that doing so would instantly destroy the item's magic. Wouldn't you expect the magic to work with the construction of the sword, rather than against it? It feels kind of like saying that if you de-string a magic bow, it's no longer magical.

If all or part of the enchantment was in the string, that would be the case.

Bu I agree that if the setting assumes swords can and will be taken apart for repair and cleaning, then whoever makes a magical sword would take that into account and craft the enchantment accordingly. After all, suits of magical armor are "disassembled" every time they are removed and frequently need repair, and they don't lose their enchantment when that happens, do they?

[Vasporos]

Thanks for the great response everyone, it has reawakened sword knowledge I had forgotten about.

Fantastic idea to place the pommel at the end of the polearm. I imagine a competent smith would consider things regarding balance and length when affixing it, if this option is accepted.

What kind of price would you consider fair for a Smith to do this for? I'm in lmop module and we've helped the town out with things already.

All of course if the DM allows it, which I can see going both ways.

[Basement Cat]

Fantastic idea to place the pommel at the end of the polearm. I imagine a competent smith would consider things regarding balance and length when affixing it, if this option is accepted. The pommel exists to balance the blade at the end of a very short handle. It become moot if you secure the blade to a pole.


What kind of price would you consider fair for a Smith to do this for? I'm in lmop module and we've helped the town out with things already.
Well, in the real world it shouldn't cost much at all. In D&D Land it's what your evil DM decides to charge. It shouldn't cost more than 10 to 30 gp at the worst but...well, evil DM... :smallwink:

[Tanarii]

If weapons that can be disassembled are a thing in that particular setting (as, apparently, was sometimes the case in real life), I find it odd to assume that doing so would instantly destroy the item's magic. Wouldn't you expect the magic to work with the construction of the sword, rather than against it? It feels kind of like saying that if you de-string a magic bow, it's no longer magical.To me it feels like working against the construction of the magic enchantment being bound into the sword. You no longer have an enchanted sword, you have three seperate pieces that were enchanted as a whole. Putting it together *might* result in the enchantment working again. But using just the blade? No way.

I'm going completely off gut feeling here though. IMO you shouldn't be able to disassemble a magic item and end up with independently magically functional pieces. Unless that's part of the magical in the first place.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

That's a pretty cheap magic sword if you can disenchant it so easily.

Pretty cheap warrior who straps a magic long sword to a stick. I assumed his sword was of equal quality to his character... ;)

[WhiteEagle88]

Something I used to do for my players is, in certain large cities where mage guilds could be found, include an NPC enchanter who specializes in magical items. One of the things this enchanter could do was "slide" an enchantment from one item to another similar item, usually for 1/3 the item's cost. This destroyed the original item, but allowed you to get the enchantment you liked on a preferred weapon. Couldn't be done with certain powerful enchantments or artifacts.

[Mellack]

Something I used to do for my players is, in certain large cities where mage guilds could be found, include an NPC enchanter who specializes in magical items. One of the things this enchanter could do was "slide" an enchantment from one item to another similar item, usually for 1/3 the item's cost. This destroyed the original item, but allowed you to get the enchantment you liked on a preferred weapon. Couldn't be done with certain powerful enchantments or artifacts.

This was standardized as a ritual in 4e with a component cast of just 25gp. We liked it as the DM didn't need to worry about customizing the loot to whatever weapons we preferred.

[War_lord]

To me it feels like working against the construction of the magic enchantment being bound into the sword. You no longer have an enchanted sword, you have three seperate pieces that were enchanted as a whole. Putting it together *might* result in the enchantment working again. But using just the blade? No way.

I'm going completely off gut feeling here though. IMO you shouldn't be able to disassemble a magic item and end up with independently magically functional pieces. Unless that's part of the magical in the first place.

But you don't end up with independently magical pieces. If you have a Sword of Sharpness, for example, the magical bit is the blade, if you took it apart you'd have a supernaturally sharp blade, and a fancy but mundane hilt and cross guard. It wouldn't be a very good magic sword if the magic was dispelled by basic maintenance.

Honestly, I find recycling the blade of a magical weapon at a specialized blacksmith a way more compelling way of giving a player a magical polearm then having some gamey magic mart "transfer" service.


Pretty cheap warrior who straps a magic long sword to a stick. I assumed his sword was of equal quality to his character... ;)

Actually speaking historically, a polearm is better then a sword in most battle situations, swords were always a backup weapon.

[Tanarii]

But you don't end up with independently magical pieces. If you have a Sword of Sharpness, for example, the magical bit is the blade, if you took it apart you'd have a supernaturally sharp blade, and a fancy but mundane hilt and cross guard. It wouldn't be a very good magic sword if the magic was dispelled by basic maintenance.Why would you assume this to be the case? This would make destroying the usefulness of the sword as simple as destroying the hilt and cross guard. If a player insisted their magical sword was actually only magical in the blade, I'd certainly point out to him he was requesting a huge vulnerability be built into the weapon, allowing enemies to disarm him quite easily.

[War_lord]

Why would you assume this to be the case? This would make destroying the usefulness of the sword as simple as destroying the hilt and cross guard. If a player insisted their magical sword was actually only magical in the blade, I'd certainly point out to him he was requesting a huge vulnerability be built into the weapon, allowing enemies to disarm him quite easily.

What on earth are you on about? It's not anymore "vulnerable" then any other sword. That's how swords are made.

https://www.albion-swords.com/bareblades.htm

[coolAlias]

Why would you assume this to be the case? This would make destroying the usefulness of the sword as simple as destroying the hilt and cross guard. If a player insisted their magical sword was actually only magical in the blade, I'd certainly point out to him he was requesting a huge vulnerability be built into the weapon, allowing enemies to disarm him quite easily.
The blade is the magical part; the other pieces are irrelevant other than they let you wield it as a weapon.

If you were in a fight or other scenario and someone managed to destroy your sword's (nonmagical) hilt, the blade would still be completely intact. Sure, you couldn't fight with it at the moment, but there is no reason it would lose its magic.

But anyway, if you want to rule that magical weapons require the entire assembly to stay together at all times, go for it. Just be prepared for players that are knowledgeable about the way swords and such were actually constructed to be dismayed by your ruling. ;)

[Tanarii]

What on earth are you on about? It's not anymore "vulnerable" then any other sword. That's how swords are made.

https://www.albion-swords.com/bareblades.htm
What's that got to do with the price of milk?

We're talking about a valuable magical item that resists being damaged/destroyed, both because it's magical, and because players don't like it when you destroy their magical items. The player is adding a glaring flaw in the security of his magical item, allowing it to be far more easily reduced from 'usable magical item' to 'magical blade I can't use effectively'.

Edit: and on the NPC verisimilitude side, No one crafting magical items would introduce such a glaring flaw in the first place.

[coolAlias]

What's that got to do with the price of milk?

We're talking about a valuable magical item that resists being damaged/destroyed, both because it's magical, and because players don't like it when you destroy their magical items. The player is adding a glaring flaw in the security of his magical item, allowing it to be far more easily reduced from 'usable magical item' to 'magical blade I can't use effectively'.

Edit: and on the NPC verisimilitude side, No one crafting magical items would introduce such a glaring flaw in the first place.
It's not a flaw... it's just the way swords are made. When was the last time you saw someone forcibly disassemble an opponent's weapon, or why do you think that is such a distinct possibility? It doesn't make any sense.

[War_lord]

We're talking about a valuable magical item that resists being damaged/destroyed, both because it's magical, and because players don't like it when you destroy their magical items. The player is adding a glaring flaw in the security of his magical item, allowing it to be far more easily reduced from 'usable magical item' to 'magical blade I can't use effectively'.

Edit: and on the NPC verisimilitude side, No one crafting magical items would introduce such a glaring flaw in the first place.

Again, it's how swords are made, if it was that much of a concern, that person would probably use a club. We're talking Beholder levels of absurd paranoid thoughts.

We've gone from "you can't remove the crossguard, that would break the sword!" to "well okay, you can do that but b-but... no one would build a MAGIC sword that way because... it could be somehow disassembled in combat", I'm having real trouble taking this line of argument seriously. What, you can't use a magic sword to end your opponent rightly?

[Rhaegar]

Again, it's how swords are made, if it was that much of a concern, that person would probably use a club. We're talking Beholder levels of absurd paranoid thoughts.

We've gone from "you can't remove the crossguard, that would break the sword!" to "well okay, you can do that but b-but... no one would build a MAGIC sword that way because... it could be somehow disassembled in combat", I'm having real trouble taking this line of argument seriously. What, you can't use a magic sword to end your opponent rightly?

The point being made is that there are some spells/abilities that will destroy non-magical items, but will not affect magical items at all. If the weapon isn't purely magical blade and hilt, any ability that destroys non-magical items, might destroy your hilt, making your sword unusable. Though I would say any DM that ruled this way would be a pretty ****ty DM.

[N810]

Perhaps just fashion some specialized langets on the end of your pole to wrap around the sword handle and pommel.
extra points of you fashion a quick release mechanism, and of course weight the other end of your pole arm,
to compensate for the swords weight.

[Vasporos]

Follow up, showed my DM this thread and asked what he thought about the situation. He had no problem with a Smith being able to rework it into a polearm. Thanks again everyone, thread can be closed or people can continue the interesting debate if they so wish :).

[ThurlRavenscrof]

Actually speaking historically, a polearm is better then a sword in most battle situations, swords were always a backup weapon.

A pole arm is a great weapon. A long sword strapped to a stick is not a pole arm

[Floopay]

Hello, back again with something I've been wondering. My level three barbarian is soon coming upon level four and after some consideration am considering polearm master to have a consistent bonus action.

The problem is that I've read that there exists almost no magical polearms in the game unless fluffed as such, the only magic weapon we have found is a +1 long sword that the warrior passed on and I accepted.

Would it be possible for my character to attach said sword in a pole? Via some survival skill check or have an armorer attach it? Would that be feasible? Thoughts please, thanks. I know speaking to my DM is essential but I was going to get an idea of how to pitch the idea if it's considered feasible.

A longsword is typically 33-46 inchest long. The Ahlspiess is the only weapon that comes anywhere near that in length, at roughly 35 inches.

However, if you have an engineer or a blacksmith in the party, you could potentially make it work by doing the following:

First, you character would have to craft a pole that's about the length of a spear (6.5-7 feet). The last 14 inches of the pole would have to have a recess built into, similar to that of a pipe, with an inside diameter of about 3 inches. The recess would then have to have slits cut into it on either side.

Finally, your character would have to drill a couple cross holes near the sides of that recess. This would allow your character to place the long sword into the recess, and then secure it with metal wire and tape.

The reason for doing this, is that if you just tied the blade to a pole, any amount of force would cause it to fall ajar. However, by placing and securing it into a safe recess, your character essentially is making the weapon into an Awl Pike or Ahlspiess.

It's incredibly complicate; but this would be what I suggest in order to make it word for your DM if he's scrutinizes everything like myself.

Thanks for reading,
Floopay

[War_lord]

A pole arm is a great weapon. A long sword strapped to a stick is not a pole arm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordstaff

You don't strap it to it, you have a shaft made.

[Basement Cat]

Follow up, showed my DM this thread and asked what he thought about the situation. He had no problem with a Smith being able to rework it into a polearm. Thanks again everyone, thread can be closed or people can continue the interesting debate if they so wish :).


Good for you! When next you meet some vicious goblins remember to cry "Have at thee!!!"

Out of curiosity would you get back to us on how much your DM had the smith charge you and what kind of properties your new polearm will have?

I'm honestly curious. :smallsmile:

[GlenSmash!]

A lot of assumptions are being made about how weapons are enchanted. This will very by setting, and maybe even by weapon.

Perhaps the blade was enchanted as a whole by an enchanter and disassembling it will cause the enchantment to no longer work.
Perhaps the blade was engraved with words of power, and re-hilting the blade will have no effect on it's enchantment.
Perhaps the blade has a magic gem set in the cross-guard or pommel that when removed will make the blade no longer enchanted.


I don't see anyone of these as better than any other as as it helps you and your friends have fun and memorable adventures.

[Tanarii]

It's not a flaw... it's just the way swords are made. When was the last time you saw someone forcibly disassemble an opponent's weapon, or why do you think that is such a distinct possibility? It doesn't make any sense.


Again, it's how swords are made, if it was that much of a concern, that person would probably use a club. We're talking Beholder levels of absurd paranoid thoughts.

We've gone from "you can't remove the crossguard, that would break the sword!" to "well okay, you can do that but b-but... no one would build a MAGIC sword that way because... it could be somehow disassembled in combat", I'm having real trouble taking this line of argument seriously. What, you can't use a magic sword to end your opponent rightly?
You guys seem to be missing the point. It's not about forcibly disassembling it in combat. It's about the hilt/cross-guard being non-magical, and thus more easily destroyed than a magical item, which are quite hard to destroy. Its now as vulnerable as a non-magical sword is to destruction, at least to the point of not being usable until the non-magical components are replaced.

Edit: Ninja'd by someone that got the point. :smallbiggrin:

[coolAlias]

You guys seem to be missing the point. It's not about forcibly disassembling it in combat. It's about the hilt/cross-guard being non-magical, and thus more easily destroyed than a magical item, which are quite hard to destroy. Its now as vulnerable as a non-magical sword is to destruction, at least to the point of not being usable until the non-magical components are replaced.

Edit: Ninja'd by someone that got the point. :smallbiggrin:
I mean... I guess you could rule that way... but for what gain? In order to shoot down a player wanting to take a magical blade and attach it to a polearm to make a magical polearm, you would say that from now on their weapon is more vulnerable to destruction because part of it is mundane and then put the character in situations where that is likely to happen, rather than just saying the magic from the blade also protects whatever nonmagical parts of the weapon it is attached to?

The last time I saw any item get destroyed by some random spell or effect was in 2e with the item saving throw tables. Players in my games sometimes destroy items, but I honestly can't recall the last time I've destroyed one of theirs (okay, maybe in 3rd edition with sunder, but not against a magical item - even if just the blade was magical).

If that's the kind of game you are running, then I suppose the player would be aware that it was a distinct possibility and be prepared for that, but I think most players in most games would be pretty upset with such a decision / outcome.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordstaff

You don't strap it to it, you have a shaft made.

I don't think you read that web page fully lol

"Although Dolstein believed the weapon was made from swords, there is no independent confirmation of this."

"clearly identifiable artistic or archaeological evidence of the form of these weapons is lacking"

[War_lord]

I don't think you read that web page fully lol

"Although Dolstein believed the weapon was made from swords, there is no independent confirmation of this."

"clearly identifiable artistic or archaeological evidence of the form of these weapons is lacking"

I did read it fully, I don't assume bad faith on you part, don't assume it on mine. The point is that the idea of a swordstaff is not totally insane, and was clearly thought possible by someone who was actually a mercenary at the time. Even if we assume Dolstein was totally wrong about what he was looking at, it's still only as absurd as "Studded Leather"


You guys seem to be missing the point. It's not about forcibly disassembling it in combat. It's about the hilt/cross-guard being non-magical, and thus more easily destroyed than a magical item, which are quite hard to destroy. Its now as vulnerable as a non-magical sword is to destruction, at least to the point of not being usable until the non-magical components are replaced.

Edit: Ninja'd by someone that got the point. :smallbiggrin:

Except your initial assertion was that you couldn't disassemble a magical sword because then it wouldn't be magical anymore, now you're arguing that each piece of the sword is independently magical item, so there should be no problem with disassembly, you just end up with a +1 sword blade, a +1 hilt and a +1 crossguard. You're now arguing against the one piece sword you argued for in the first place.

[Knaight]

You guys seem to be missing the point. It's not about forcibly disassembling it in combat. It's about the hilt/cross-guard being non-magical, and thus more easily destroyed than a magical item, which are quite hard to destroy. Its now as vulnerable as a non-magical sword is to destruction, at least to the point of not being usable until the non-magical components are replaced.

Hardly. Some types of breaking are vastly more common than others, and with a sword it's the blade that tends to get damaged. Reinforcing the weakest parts of an object makes it significantly harder to destroy than a non-reinforced object. Take a bike - if only the tires are enchanted to be puncture proof, it's a lot less likely to break than a nonmagical bike. Following that up with enchanting the spokes against breaking, the brakes against wear, and the gears and chain against rust removes almost all maintenance even if you don't enchant the frame, or the fork, or the handlebars. Those weren't going to break anyways most of the time*.

*And if they did, it's because aluminum is a substandard material unsuitable for designs intended to last.

[Tanarii]

Except your initial assertion was that you couldn't disassemble a magical sword because then it wouldn't be magical anymore, now you're arguing that each piece of the sword is independently magical item, so there should be no problem with disassembly, you just end up with a +1 sword blade, a +1 hilt and a +1 crossguard. You're now arguing against the one piece sword you argued for in the first place.
You might want to start over again. I'm arguing that a magical item is a magical item when it's a single item, and they'd intentionally be designed that way for a reason, and magical item owners would want such a thing.

Others have argued that only the blade part needs to be magical. I'm pointing out that it's a stupid vulnerability, no magical item owner would want such an item (especially PCs who get whiny when their shineys get destroyed), and no magical item crafter would create such a thing.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You might want to start over again. I'm arguing that a magical item is a magical item when it's a single item, and they'd intentionally be designed that way for a reason, and magical item owners would want such a thing.

Others have argued that only the blade part needs to be magical. I'm pointing out that it's a stupid vulnerability, no magical item owner would want such an item (especially PCs who get whiny when their shineys get destroyed), and no magical item crafter would create such a thing.
Whereas we're arguing that if a mundane item is DESIGNED to be disassembled for maintenance or whatnot, it makes absolutely no sense that an enchanted version would behave differently. (And, as Knaight pointed out, the only way a sword is likely to get damaged is by smacking the blade off something hard)

[scalyfreak]

Others have argued that only the blade part needs to be magical. I'm pointing out that it's a stupid vulnerability, no magical item owner would want such an item (especially PCs who get whiny when their shineys get destroyed), and no magical item crafter would create such a thing.

And in doing so you're conveniently overlooking the part where no sword maker would create a sword that is one single item, because that's just not how swords were made. Unless you are trying to argue that magical swords need to be made from one single piece of metal, with the hilt and cross guard where most blades have the tang...? That would make them very difficult to balance properly.

A regular sword hilt is already more vulnerable than the blade, by virtue of not being steel. All fighters are used to swords being that way, and might even see it as a deficiency if that stopped being the case. For example, a samurai handed a katana with a tsuba that cannot be removed and replaced as the situation requires.

[Tanarii]

(And, as Knaight pointed out, the only way a sword is likely to get damaged is by smacking the blade off something hard)I don't know what kinds of games you're playing in, but Mundane equipment getting destroyed in D&D is a staple of the game. Hell, it used to be a thing to have to make a failed save for every item you were carrying if you failed a save vs a fireball or lightning bolt.

[coolAlias]

I don't know what kinds of games you're playing in, but Mundane equipment getting destroyed in D&D is a staple of the game. Hell, it used to be a thing to have to make a failed save for every item you were carrying if you failed a save vs a fireball or lightning bolt.
Yes, and they got rid of that, probably because it wasn't fun for the majority of players, but it is certainly still a valid way to play. It can be a fun challenge if everyone agrees that is the kind of game they want to play, but singling out a magical sword with a mundane hilt (the most likely case - or a magical hilt with mundane blade) is just petty when you could just as easily rule that the magic from the blade (or hilt or whatever) extends to the rest of the item.

[Tanarii]

Or you could keep it simple and say "the magical item is enchanted as a whole, stop trying to be a munchkin to game the system"

[N810]

Follow up, showed my DM this thread and asked what he thought about the situation. He had no problem with a Smith being able to rework it into a polearm. Thanks again everyone, thread can be closed or people can continue the interesting debate if they so wish :).

ps. the problem has been resolved by the OP.

[Sigreid]

The ability to disassemble some swords was brought up to show re-purposing a blade isn't crazy. Historically it was done quite a lot. Especially when and where good steel was hard to get.

It's also not crazy for a DM to rule that magic swords have to be welded, or that the process of enchanting welds a sword that could otherwise be taken apart.

Thus thread got weirdly absolutist on both sides.

[Knaight]

Or you could keep it simple and say "the magical item is enchanted as a whole, stop trying to be a munchkin to game the system"

You could, if you actively wanted to disincentivize player creativity.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

I did read it fully, I don't assume bad faith on you part, don't assume it on mine. The point is that the idea of a swordstaff is not totally insane, and was clearly thought possible by someone who was actually a mercenary at the time. Even if we assume Dolstein was totally wrong about what he was looking at, it's still only as absurd as "Studded Leather"


So you want me to assume you fully read something that doesn't support your viewpoint, understood that it doesn't support your viewpoint, and then deliberately and misleadingly posted it knowing it didn't support your viewpoint? Additionally, you do assume bad faith on my part; you assume I know nothing about ancient and medieval weapons but chose to get into a discussion about them anyway.
"Actually speaking historically, a polearm is better then a sword in most battle situations, swords were always a backup weapon."

And there are literally thousands of historical examples of a professional thinking something insane was a great idea so finding one (or even a handful) of professionals who support an idea really doesn't mean much. One particularly hilarious example is that the dude who (accidentally) invented a way to create phosphorous was actually trying to distill his own urine into gold. He was a scientist at the time and he thought urine-to-gold alchemy was possible. But... it's still totally insane... and so are swordstaffs... and so is "studded leather"...

If someone wants to put them in their game for fun, more power to them! But this discussion was about if that's possible/feasible. And the answer history (and physics) has taught us is no. It is not.

[Spookykid]

How common are MAGIC pole arms in published adventures and the difficulty to get one in an adventures league setting?

[Tanarii]

Thus thread got weirdly absolutist on both sides.
It's amazing how often I chime in on a thread, with what's in my mind merely a plausible alternative to someone's (not necessarily absolutist) point of view, only to spiral in further as I am forced to defend it as a plausible alternative from others who are continually attacking it as not plausible at all because they're locked into their absolutist stance.

Whenever I get a chance to step back, that's when I realize that others are trying to defend their own plausible alternative positions to my 'absolutist' stance. In their view. :smallyuk:

So yeah, a DM enabling taking a magical weapon apart and allowing the magic to be retained in just the blade portion isn't some great crime. But neither is it something a player should automatically assume will be acceptable to the DM.

[coolAlias]

It's amazing how often I chime in on a thread, with what's in my mind merely a plausible alternative to someone's (not necessarily absolutist) point of view, only to spiral in further as I am forced to defend it as a plausible alternative from others who are continually attacking it as not plausible at all because they're locked into their absolutist stance.

Whenever I get a chance to step back, that's when I realize that others are trying to defend their own plausible alternative positions to my 'absolutist' stance. In their view. :smallyuk:

So yeah, a DM enabling taking a magical weapon apart and allowing the magic to be retained in just the blade portion isn't some great crime. But neither is it something a player should automatically assume will be acceptable to the DM.
Now that, I can fully agree with! :D

[Coffee_Dragon]

Magic swords are full of bugs?

Break a magic sword in a retributive strike and bugs pour out.

Break a Staff of Creeping Doom in a retributive strike and swords pour out.

[Sigreid]

Break a magic sword in a retributive strike and bugs pour out.

Break a Staff of Creeping Doom in a retributive strike and swords pour out.

A holy weapon in particular causing someone to be infested with a plague of insects when they break a holy artifact seems very appropriate.

[Vogonjeltz]

I agree with unoriginal. There are tons of ways to get a magical pole arm because of +x weapons. One of my characters had a halberd of warning which was awesome.

But perhaps more importantly, strapping a longsword to a stick is absurd. That's like a person 2000 years in the future trying to remove a monitor from a laptop to use the rest of the laptop as a hard drive. I suppose in theory, it is like a hard drive but... It's inconvenient, unwieldy, and totally unusable in a practical situation

Don't harbor any illusions about the probability of a magic polearm weapon occurring by random chance, there's something less than a 1% probability of such an event using the random treasure tables.

No, if you want a magic polearm, you basically have to go ahead and ask your DM to put one in the adventure on purpose.

[Rfkannen]

Yeah I would allow it, if you want to play a polearm user and you are only finding magic swords, it probably would be more fun for the player to haev magic items they can actually use with their specility! Now granted I would actually probably just alter the table so that you got actual magic polearms but if I wasnt going to do that I would allow.

Actually now that I think about it, I would make it a side quest, you have to go to the magical blacksmith who lives on a dangerous mountain and only she can reshaft the blade, made it interesting you know?

[coolAlias]

Actually now that I think about it, I would make it a side quest, you have to go to the magical blacksmith who lives on a dangerous mountain and only she can reshaft the blade, made it interesting you know?
That's how I'd probably do it as well. It'd be pretty boring (not to mention a little ridiculous) to just disassemble the sword and strap the blade to a stick. Some resources spent and an interesting side quest to get it done? You bet.