Why does pole arm master not work on all pole arms

[Amdy_vill]

So pole arm master only works on weapons with the reach ability but there are weapons that are pole arm that do not have reach why is this and would changing it heavily effect balance.

[Eric Diaz]

So pole arm master only works on weapons with the reach ability but there are weapons that are pole arm that do not have reach why is this and would changing it heavily effect balance.

It works with glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff (quarterstaff doesn't have reach).

I don't know what other weapons you're referring to, but it wouldn't affect balance to let it apply to spears etc IMO.

[Amdy_vill]

javelins, spears, battle axe, great axe, and war hammers are all pole arms of some verity.

[SkipSandwich]

javelins, spears, battle axe, great axe, and war hammers are all pole arms of some verity.

of the above, only the spear is a proper pole arm. The DnD Javalin is something like the Ronan pilla, the battle axe has no historical counterpart I can think of, great axe represents something like a Dane ax, and Warhammers are historically, short, one-handed weapons like maces and war axes.

[Amdy_vill]

my understanding the closes thing to a war hammer in history were siege weapons used to break down doors

[JackPhoenix]

my understanding the closes thing to a war hammer in history were siege weapons used to break down doors

Closest thing to warhammer in history was warhammer. It was more similar to a pick, with sharp point for breaking armor. Battle axe is normal, one-handed war axe. Javelin is too short for a proper polearm, it's throwing weapon. Greataxe is just axe with long enough haft to require two hands, but too short to qualify for polearm. PAM doesn't work with spear, to endless frustration to many players (the second point should, unlike with quarterstaff, while the first doesn't make much sense). First point of PAM also doesn't work with pike, because fighting style used is different and doesn't really allows for smashing foes with haft after you stab them.

[Laserlight]

of the above, only the spear is a proper pole arm.

I assume that a D&D spear is more like an assegai--too short to be a real polearm. But truthfully, the D&D weapon table doesn't make a great deal of sense, and this is only one of many reasons why not.

[Willie the Duck]

First statement: the feat works with the a limited selection of items and that's a deliberate limiting factor. It is a very strong benefit, but the opportunity cost is that you won't be using it with the +3 greatsword your DM left for you. Changing the rules would eliminate or mitigate that opportunity cost.

Second statement: the term polearm does not necessarily have a rigorous definition. Even if it does, that definition is routinely misapplied. Gary Gygax used it to refer to a specific list of historic weapons he considered interesting. Some things, like spears, probably were not included in the polearm category simply because they were so common, that you would refer to "spears," rather than "polearm, spear subtype." Regardless, polearm means something in D&D/AD&D, and it doesn't just mean 'any weapon with a wooden, pole-like haft.' It just doesn't, sorry if that doesn't make perfect sense. It's hardly unique. Studded Leather barely existed, historically, and yet it is a staple of D&D.

Third statement: Some things even the game seems to be of two minds about. Is the Warhammer of the game a 'Thor's Hammer'-like little-hafted, huge headed thing, or a long poles, pick-like weapon? Probably both, depending on the given writer or artist. Same with pikes... the weight is right for the 15'-18' long super-long spears that can only be effectively wielded in ranks, and would be useless against an opponent 5' away, yet by the rules you can hit an adjacent opponent, suggesting that maybe what we're talking about is more of a longspear (a always two handed, but significantly shorter-than-pike weapon).

[KorvinStarmast]

I assume that a D&D spear is more like an assegai--too short to be a real polearm. But truthfully, the D&D weapon table doesn't make a great deal of sense, and this is only one of many reasons why not. Not really. You may be thinking of the weapons introduced in Tomb of Annihilation: the yklwa.

Regular spear does 1d6 one handed and 1d8 two handed, can be thrown, but sadly does not have PAM applicable.

[Tanarii]

Closest thing to warhammer in history was warhammer. It was more similar to a pick, with sharp point for breaking armor.D&D having both a warhammer and a warpick is endlessly amusing to me now. I must say that when I was younger, it caused me to honestly believe they were different things.

Of course, illustrations in warhammer RPG, then D&D 3e, then Warcraft didn't help. It's only in the last decade or less, when it's become fairly common Internet knowledge that I finally learned the truth. So maybe "younger" isn't an accurate way to phrase it.


I assume that a D&D spear is more like an assegai--too short to be a real polearm. But truthfully, the D&D weapon table doesn't make a great deal of sense, and this is only one of many reasons why not.Same. Spear is clearly a 4ft to 4-1/2 spear, since it can be effectively used outside of formation and can be thrown easily. From what little staff and spear training I have, there is absolutely no way to do that with a Staff or Spear as tall as I am, or about 6ft. They both require 2 hands to fight effectively, although you certainly make some occasional sweeping 1H strikes in the process. So I envision it as a shorter weapon. (And generally ignore the idea that a quarterstaff can be a one handed weapon).

I also assume a 5e "Pike" is a normal longish spear of 6-7ft, although the weight doesn't work for that. And a real-world Pike is actually a 5e "Lance" used on foot, a reach only weapon, or more accurately disadvantage if used within 5ft.

OTOH if a player wants to imagine that the fight scene from Troy is how single person combat with a shield and a 5e spear (= 6ft long) would go down, far be it from me to disabuse them. In that case, I can totally see they'd want PAM to work with a 5e "Spear" if it was being used 2 handed.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I’m curious as to why Polearm Master doesn’t work in full with the pike. Outside of damage type (slashing vs. piercing), weight/cost, and this specific non-interaction, the pike is identical to the halberd and the glaive.

Speaking of, why do the halberd and glaive both exist? They have completely identical stats, including cost and weight. They seem redundant.

[Zippee]

of the above, only the spear is a proper pole arm. The DnD Javalin is something like the Ronan pilla, the battle axe has no historical counterpart I can think of, great axe represents something like a Dane ax, and Warhammers are historically, short, one-handed weapons like maces and war axes.

Spears aren't polearms and neither are pikes or quarterstaffs for that matter.

Polearm is a catch all for all the halberd / bec-de-corbin / glaive / bill / partisan and other assorted 'blade and spike on a shaft' weapons of the late medieval period.

Historical warhammers are light hammers with very small heads (more like a standard claw hammer on a 2' shaft) for very high impact poundage and have a nasty pointy spike on the reverse usually - I have no idea what misidentification led to the existence of a light and war hammer, it's sheer fantasy (unless light hammer is literally a tool / smith's hammer). And war pick is the warhammer used the other way around - not a separate weapon.

Hand axe - battle axe - great axe makes more sense, that's basically hatchet - woodsman's axe - Dane axe (though why the woodsman's axe would be martial is anyone's guess)

Javelin - spear - pike is also sensible. Not convinced that javelin equates to pila as the range is all wrong (if it des then you don't get to recover it for reuse without tinkering for a short rest) but spears - even long 8' -10' spears would be thrown, if only to get rid of them once the enemy was inside the reach but it wasn't their primary purpose. Javelins are genuine missile weapons, spears are universal cheap and effective weapons and pikes very specialised military weapons. We can argue forever about where on the length axis a javelin becomes a light spear becomes a heavy spear becomes a pike and there is even more difference due to the shape and style of the spearhead than the length of the shaft. Leaves and quillons and broad blades to cut as well as stab make it a fighting spear - or large long leafed, quilloned and braced head a boar spear, or narrow pointed head a throw/stab spear, and on, and on, and on. You'll note that a hefty, broad bladed spear is getting mighty close to some of the later polearms in style - it's probably fair to say that some spears may qualify as polearms, but spear as a classification does not.

Flail should be heavy, 2H - it's an adaptation of a grain thresher, all the historical illustrations I'm aware of are absolutely 2-handed

Mace should be martial, it's a specialised weapon. Clubs are the simple version (and should probably be versatile to allow for the baseball bat thing). Maul's on the other hand are two-handed mallets used for fencing and stakes - only military usage comes form their improvised use in the Hundred Years War by English archers, making them a martial weapon is a joke. Greatclub, though, that should be martial. And morning star should probably be both piercing and bludgeoning - hard to say which when it's a spiked ball on a length of chain.

But honestly trying to make sense of D&D weapons by analogy to historical accuracy is a waste of time, that initial wonky source material has a lot of explaining to do. The terminology and identification was laughable in the mid-70s let alone for later editions but at least we've lost all the 'footman's' and 'horseman's' versions. The same is true for armour, either houserule it into something that doesn't set your teeth on edge (dropping the word 'chain' for example is a good start) or just live with it, because: D&D.

[Willie the Duck]

I’m curious as to why Polearm Master doesn’t work in full with the pike. Outside of damage type (slashing vs. piercing), weight/cost, and this specific non-interaction, the pike is identical to the halberd and the glaive.

Real life historic books on fighting depicted one-on-one halberd fighting to include sweeps with the back end (sometimes even having actual hooks on the back end), which is likely where the butt-end attack idea comes from. The same would not work with a long spear-like weapon. It is the pike and halberd/glaive having the same reach as each other that appears to be the inaccurate part.


Speaking of, why do the halberd and glaive both exist? They have completely identical stats, including cost and weight. They seem redundant.

Redundant doesn't seem to be a quality deemed unacceptable. A trident is identical to spear except in minor weight and cost differences, and that one is simple and one martial.


Historical warhammers are light hammers with very small heads (more like a standard claw hammer on a 2' shaft) for very high impact poundage and have a nasty pointy spike on the reverse usually - I have no idea what misidentification led to the existence of a light and war hammer, it's sheer fantasy (unless light hammer is literally a tool / smith's hammer).

The early D&D magic item Hammer of Thuderbolts makes me believe that Marvel Comics was included in the mental mix, and that originally "footman's/horseman's picks" were the warhammers of early editions and that "warhammers" were effectively "thor's hammers." It was certainly a challenge back in the AD&D days to play a dwarven fighter with a warhammer for thematic reasons, knowing that your damage profile was 1d4+1/1d4 while the longsword fighter's was 1d8/1d12.

[Zippee]

The early D&D magic item Hammer of Thuderbolts makes me believe that Marvel Comics was included in the mental mix, and that originally "footman's/horseman's picks" were the warhammers of early editions and that "warhammers" were effectively "thor's hammers." It was certainly a challenge back in the AD&D days to play a dwarven fighter with a warhammer for thematic reasons, knowing that your damage profile was 1d4+1/1d4 while the longsword fighter's was 1d8/1d12.

That's a fair point and you may be right about the picks. There are so many sources and media that trying to decipher the intent is hard. This has only been made worse by the vast increase in media source material often built upon the dodgy descriptions and fantasy memes such that many newer players assume those memes were the intent from the get-go. Clearly the original intent was to be very close to historical but with some 'fantasy' added - Thor's Hammer likely being a very good example.

[Tanarii]

And morning star should probably be both piercing and bludgeoning - hard to say which when it's a spiked ball on a length of chain.
Saying that a Morningstar is a spiked ball on a length of chain makes your entire "historically accurate" post suspect.

[Zippee]

Saying that a Morningstar is a spiked ball on a length of chain makes your entire "historically accurate" post suspect.

Really what do you think it is?

It can be a straight shaft with a spiked ball but really that's just a spiked mace, mostly it's one or more balls linked by chain to a short shaft. Although the multi-ball version is probably more fantasy/myth than reality, and the spikes are optional too. Of course various versions of D&D (including Baldur's Gate famously) have erroneously called that a flail. And that misnomer has persisted but it's still a misnomer.

[Willie the Duck]

Really what do you think it is?

It can be a straight shaft with a spiked ball but really that's just a spiked mace, mostly it's one or more balls linked by chain to a short shaft. Although the multi-ball version is probably more fantasy/myth than reality, and the spikes are optional too. Of course various versions of D&D (including Baldur's Gate famously) have erroneously called that a flail. And that misnomer has persisted but it's still a misnomer.

Where are you getting your information? Obviously these terms had widespread use without uniform consistency, but the general wisdom is that the spiked wooden shaft was the standard weapon referred to as a morningstar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_(weapon)) (not that Wikipedia is a great source on these things, but at least it is a shared reference point). I'm pretty sure the ball and chain Morningstar was popularized by Nintendo's Castlevania property. I can't find any RPG references to such a weapon before it, to be certain.

[Tanarii]

I'm pretty sure the ball and chain Morningstar was popularized by Nintendo's Castlevania property. I can't find any RPG references to such a weapon before it, to be certain.
I've always suspected that too. Certainly that's the reason everyone in my and my brother's group of friends thought it was a ball-and-chain, as opposed to a spiked-metal-on-club thing that seems to be the historical Morningstar.

From the Wikipedia article:
"The term is often confused with the military flail (fléau d'armes in French and Kriegsflegel in German), which consists of a wooden shaft joined by a length of chain to one or more iron-shod wooden bars (heavy sword pommels have also been used as weights).[3] However, there are few depictions of such a ball-and-chain flail from the period, so the weapon of this type appears to have been uncommon.[2]"

As far as I'm concerned it its on Wikipedia, it's official. :smallwink:

[Jophiel]

And war pick is the warhammer used the other way around - not a separate weapon.
I always assumed (without any historical context) that a war pick was essentially a hammer with two pointy business ends. Sort of like a rock pick but designed and balanced for fighting. In an RPG context, it'd probably mainly be a flavor weapon for your tunnel-dwelling races.

[Rivuzu]

If we're to compare fantasy with real life, then the maul is more like the warhammer in terms of appearance. A giant, weighty, blunt instrument? Yeah boi, slam that maul around.

An actual warhammer, as many have said above, is much smaller and is more like a balled mace on the end of a long haft, with a spike on the reverse.

Honestly if we're picking over the weapon table though, that's pretty low down on the list of concerns. Why Tridents aren't the same as Spears, despite having the same damage dice, I don't know. More than 1 head on the same pointy end = martial? What on earth?

The greatsword is also more of a bludgeoning weapon than it is a slashing one.

But as with all things D&D, it's more about the fantasy styling than it is reality.

[Zippee]

Where are you getting your information? Obviously these terms had widespread use without uniform consistency, but the general wisdom is that the spiked wooden shaft was the standard weapon referred to as a morningstar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_(weapon)) (not that Wikipedia is a great source on these things, but at least it is a shared reference point). I'm pretty sure the ball and chain Morningstar was popularized by Nintendo's Castlevania property. I can't find any RPG references to such a weapon before it, to be certain.

Where - years of experience and a lot of time spent in historical records and working in museums including places like The Armouries.

ETA: and I should have said that yes, a spiked ball on a shaft without chains is also a morning star but I don't think that is what is intended in RPG weapons listings - I think that is subsumed into mace, but you are correct that technically that is a morning star and by far the most common form.

And whilst I'm not sure about widespread use the sheer number of variant names for these weapons causes lots of confusion. The fact remains that whilst we might be able to point to a bill and say "bill" and a halberd and say "halberd" no-one can really identify what the actual differences between all the different names are. Chances are they are different names for the same thing or variations thereof and there never was a formal understanding of what was what but modern scholars and gamers alike have tried to stamp an aura of regularity and form on them.

Actually for once this Wiki piece isn't bad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_(weapon)

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMorning_star_(weapon) where it discusses flail v morning star - the flail seems to me to be transcribed because the chains are sometimes denoted as flails - and I guess the action of a multi-headed star is certainly to 'flail around'. However a spiked ball device is not a historical flail. I'm fairly sure we can once again assign this clerical screw up to the Victorians, those people who also gave us the chain in mail.

This entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_(weapon) does a creditable job of explaining a flail compared to a morning star and accepts the term flail is used for both. I guess to be honest that pop culture has now changed language and that whilst incorrect it is acceptable to call a ball and chain a flail and a mail hauberk a chain mail shirt! I also think there's an element of American v English in the use of the terms - although whether that's caused by or reinforced by EGGs weapon listings is open to debate.

The only pop culture depiction I can think of for a flail - as in derived from the threshing instrument, Hussite style, flail - is where [and god help me I'm about to quote Braveheart as historical evidence] our woad wearing ahistorical loon rides his horse to the wooden fort with the flail down his back. Honestly I can't think of another example. See also https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hussite+flail&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXgNf41M3XAhUJIMAKHbk8CE4QsAQIMw&biw=1920&bih=963 hence why I think it should be 2h and heavy.

I can't talk to Nintendo but can assure you that whatever we choose to call it there are depictions of spiked ball and chain weapons in media at least as long ago as 1954, and that whilst many of the examples in stately hall displays may be Victorian in origin (man, do they have a lot answer for!) there are archaeological and medieval manuscript examples of them.

[Zippee]

I always assumed (without any historical context) that a war pick was essentially a hammer with two pointy business ends. Sort of like a rock pick but designed and balanced for fighting. In an RPG context, it'd probably mainly be a flavor weapon for your tunnel-dwelling races.

Fantasy novels are also replete with dwarven war mattocks and such like, the pick has historical precedent but I think the D&D pick (as it's developed - I think EGG may have had a more historical view) is more informed by a dwarf using a mining tool than it is a precision instrument for piercing plate armour.

Nearly all images for war pick return a war hammer or some strange single bladed things - probably where the spike dominates rather than the head, see https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=1920&bih=963&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=_A4TWpP3IKuVgAaouLDoBQ&q=war+pick&oq=war+pick&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.1054841.1057740.0.1058087.21.14.0.0.0.0 .184.1013.11j1.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..11.9.842.0..0i67k1.123.XI5at7SzDjU

[Tanarii]

Honestly if we're picking over the weapon table though, that's pretty low down on the list of concerns. Why Tridents aren't the same as Spears, despite having the same damage dice, I don't know. More than 1 head on the same pointy end = martial? What on earth?Pretty sure the 'logic' was that it's a less commonly used/trained weapon. And it makes a difference in who can use magical Tridents.

In fact, a lot of things on the weapon table make sense if you look at them for reasons other than simple balance based on pure face value of the table alone. The D&D tradition of randomly found magical items is one. Another is various holy cows / tradition. Yet another is probably how frequently the designers thought weapons should be used by PCs. And then there's obvious ones like the Glaive / Halberd: They may have identical stats, but they're two different weapons, so most players that aren't pure mechanics-minded will expect two separate table entries.

[Rivuzu]

Doesn't really answer why just adding another spearhead onto the end of your spear suddenly means you're not proficient with it though! Aesthetically it's almost identical, and physically it's just a little extra weight at the end - not enough to throw you off.

/remains salty that he cannot make a trident wielding monk without going Kensai

[Tanarii]

Doesn't really answer why just adding another spearhead onto the end of your spear suddenly means you're not proficient with it though! Aesthetically it's almost identical, and physically it's just a little extra weight at the end - not enough to throw you off.I haven't ever tried to learn a Trident fighting-style, so I can't speak to that. :smalltongue:

Edit: I will say that in my limited experience training with weapons, adding a little bit of weight to one end of a weapon can significantly change the way it "fights".

[Zippee]

Given that outside of fishing the trident only appears in two combat forms to the best of my knowledge:

Korean as the dangpa which is actually less trident and almost partisan in style - doesn't look 'equal pronged' to me, more a long shafted main gauche. And there's a whole weird world of oriental polearms we aren't touching on here - I'm sure there are similar forms in Han, Tang or Sui era China I just can't think of any off hand though.

And gladiatorial as the Retiarus - probably as some kind of Neptune parable / parody.

Really the trident shouldn't be on the weapon's table because it's not really a weapon, but hey D&D right.

Even if we allow it's a form of spear though, it still shouldn't fall under polearm master.

We shouldn't be looking to add things, we should be removing quarterstaff (I can live with pike due to the extra reach and the sheer inefficiency of it as non-formation weapon)

Or why is it martial? Same reason a wooden mallet is I guess - it's a fishing implement, surely we can't allow peasants to fish, not without extensive training. It should be worse than a spear though, unwieldy and top heavy.

[Tanarii]

And gladiatorial as the Retiarus - probably as some kind of Neptune parable / parody.

Really the trident shouldn't be on the weapon's table because it's not really a weapon, but hey D&D right.Right. Which was kind of my point. IMO it's only there at all because Gladiator Background and certain holy cow magical Tridents. So there's no particular need for it to be mechanically superior to a spear just because it's martial.

[Zippee]

Right. Which was kind of my point. IMO it's only there at all because Gladiator Background and certain holy cow magical Tridents. So there's no particular need for it to be mechanically superior to a spear just because it's martial.

Right so Wave, Poseidon/Neptune honouring and rhetarius (which is fisherman folk hero) - so definitely not a martial weapon.

I'd be happy to transfer it to Simple if it played into a player's background schtick, still wouldn't add it to polearm master though :smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

Right so Wave, Poseidon/Neptune honouring and rhetarius (which is fisherman folk hero) - so definitely not a martial weapon.The opposite. Definitely a martial weapon, because it takes special training to effectively use it as a weapon at all. Making it Martial makes it uncommon and hard to use.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Speaking of hussites, in czech, we have three different words (cep, řemdih, biják) for flail, and two (kropáč, řemdih) words for morningstar (the spiked mace-style one). Řemdih is used for both weapons.

To make the whole thing better, one of the words used for flail (cep) is the same word used for grain tresher (from which the polearm-flail was developed)


Right. Which was kind of my point. IMO it's only there at all because Gladiator Background and certain holy cow magical Tridents. So there's no particular need for it to be mechanically superior to a spear just because it's martial.

I think that trident earns its place in D&D thanks to various aquatic races who use it, to get back to the aquatic imagery. Not to mention that the magical tridents are also sea-based... Trident of Fish Command, Wave, old Trident of Warning which detected aquatic dangers...

[Eric Diaz]

Speaking of hussites, in czech, we have three different words (cep, řemdih, biják) for flail, and two (kropáč, řemdih) words for morningstar (the spiked mace-style one). Řemdih is used for both weapons.

To make the whole thing better, one of the words used for flail (cep) is the same word used for grain tresher (from which the polearm-flail was developed)


This is really interesting!

Flails are not that simple in english either... I've written a post about flails, morning starts, holy water sprinklers, etc., but it seems I've accidentally deleted it...

The curious thing is that the holy water sprinkler has a few different meaning and most of them don't actually look like the actual implement used to sprinkle holy water.

Anyway, here is one good explanation on (one type) of "morning star" flail and why they might not be actual weapons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-y6oirEsZA

[Willie the Duck]

The opposite. Definitely a martial weapon, because it takes special training to effectively use it as a weapon at all. Making it Martial makes it uncommon and hard to use.

Well, special training to use it with any great proficiency (remember, all we're talking about is being able to add one's proficiency bonus to the attack roll).

I'm all for never-really/barely-used as weapon items being allowed in because they are thematic to the game (tridents because of gladiators and aquatic races, sickles because druids), but what I don't understand is why they got rid of scythes. What, the grim reaper isn't iconic enough?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Redundant doesn't seem to be a quality deemed unacceptable. A trident is identical to spear except in minor weight and cost differences, and that one is simple and one martial.

I get exceedingly similar items. Longsword and battleaxe are very similar too (both versatile 1d8 slashing martial weapons), but the cost and weight differences are enough that they’d, say, affect which of the two I’d arm a batallion with (spoiler: it’s the axe), and they are different enough that the mention of their names evokes entirely different images.

But halberd and glaive? Both are martial weapons; both deal 1d10 slashing damage; both have the heavy, reach, and two-handed properties; and both cost 20 gp and weigh 6 lbs. On-paper, there is literally nothing different about them. Moreover, I (as a layperson) couldn’t tell you the difference between a glaive and a halberd without first looking at pictures of them. They just seem redundant.

[Willie the Duck]

And as I said, redundant does not appear to be a quality deemed unacceptable. As someone with decades of D&D experience, my preference would be for them to appear on the same line, but I can also see why they would choose not to (the same person who doesn't know what a halberd or glaive are doesn't necessarily know that "halberd/glaive isn't a single thing (especially when a glaive-guisarme is a single thing).

[Zippee]

I get exceedingly similar items. Longsword and battleaxe are very similar too (both versatile 1d8 slashing martial weapons), but the cost and weight differences are enough that they’d, say, affect which of the two I’d arm a batallion with (spoiler: it’s the axe), and they are different enough that the mention of their names evokes entirely different images.

But halberd and glaive? Both are martial weapons; both deal 1d10 slashing damage; both have the heavy, reach, and two-handed properties; and both cost 20 gp and weigh 6 lbs. On-paper, there is literally nothing different about them. Moreover, I (as a layperson) couldn’t tell you the difference between a glaive and a halberd without first looking at pictures of them. They just seem redundant.

Don't worry most 'experts' can't agree on the difference between different polearms either. I sort of assume that they felt compelled to include more than one polearm as homage back to the 1ed list of polearms. Otherwise there really is no need for two separate line entries, it's not like one is heavy and more damage the other light and less, so it is mechanically meaningless, even the flavour is insipid.

In many ways it would be better if the table listed a few basic comparable combat stats and allowed the flavour of weapon type to be picked accordingly. Such as:

Martial 1 hand versatile 1d8 (S), cost X, weight Y with some flavour examples - say longsword, falchion or battleaxe.

The Simple version would probably lose the versatile downsize to a d6 be cheaper and have slightly different flavour examples - say machete, hatchet or cleaver

Add 2h and/or heavy/reach and change the damage dice, cost, weight and flavour examples accordingly - change things like Polearm Master to affect weapons that have 2h reach rather than specific names.

[Tanarii]

And as I said, redundant does not appear to be a quality deemed unacceptable. As someone with decades of D&D experience, my preference would be for them to appear on the same line, but I can also see why they would choose not to (the same person who doesn't know what a halberd or glaive are doesn't necessarily know that "halberd/glaive isn't a single thing (especially when a glaive-guisarme is a single thing).I don't know how a Glaive & Halberd fights IRL, but I don't visualize use of a halberd can anything like a naganata. Which is what I think of when I read "Glaive". Of course, 90% of my naganata head-canon comes from old martial arts flicks. :smallbiggrin:

[Zippee]

I don't know how a Glaive & Halberd fights IRL, but I don't visualize use of a halberd can anything like a naganata. Which is what I think of when I read "Glaive". Of course, 90% of my naganata head-canon comes from old martial arts flicks. :smallbiggrin:

Bringing eastern weapons into the equation does kind of complicate matters - I'm not sure what they were developed for. But western polearms are developed to 'fence' at reach with options to cut and jab, catch and drag opponents in full plate or at least heavy armour. The shaft being long enough to apply sufficient leverage to puncture as well as grant reach.

a halberd is an axe like blade with a back spike opposite it and a separate narrow spear-like point, it allows chopping (with blade or point as required) and stabbing forward (slightly inefficiently compared to a spear due to head weight)

a glaive is typically a much longer broadish blade that is it's own end point (much more like a developed bill). It also usually includes a rear fork or spike for catching or dragging opponents

[trying to differentiate glaive from guisarme from glaive-gusiarme or bill or bill-guisarme is a mug's game - they all have their root in the agricultural billhook]

a naginata by comparison has a similar but narrower and smoother [more sword like] blade than a glaive but lacks any kind of rear hook or spike as far as I know

My faux combat experience is in earlier (Anglo-Saxon-Norman) periods, although I have fought against full plate, polearms - they look scarier than they are and a concerted rush by a bunch of sword and shield quickly got within their reach and butchered them, despite them being behind chevaux-de-frise. The problem was being convinced we would all go in - because one at a time would have seen us butchered. I distinctly remember our line rolling and waving, ebbing and flowing whilst we built up everyone to go - the longer we waited the longer the arrows fell. I have no experience in one-to-one duelling against them - done it lots against Dane axes and spears, and again I'd rather a sword/knife and buckler/shield, once you close they're dead meat.

ETA: Dane axe is scarier but spear more dangerous and harder but once your inside they're pretty much done - spear is usually trickier because they tend to have shield as well and can drop back the grip on the shaft to reduce reach and more quickly swap out for a hand weapon, Dane-axe is a one trick pony. Then again faux-combat is faux-combat and the Dane-axe can't really be used to its full capacity because he is actually trying not to kill you :smallbiggrin:

[Crusher]

Pretty sure the 'logic' was that it's a less commonly used/trained weapon. And it makes a difference in who can use magical Tridents.

Really, its the ideal weapon if you're fighting 3 vampires huddled together.

[JackPhoenix]

This is really interesting!

Flails are not that simple in english either... I've written a post about flails, morning starts, holy water sprinklers, etc., but it seems I've accidentally deleted it...

The curious thing is that the holy water sprinkler has a few different meaning and most of them don't actually look like the actual implement used to sprinkle holy water.

Anyway, here is one good explanation on (one type) of "morning star" flail and why they might not be actual weapons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-y6oirEsZA

Back to this: apparently, another words used for morningstar, though much less often, are morgenštern (from german morgenstern) and jitřenka (literally morning star... the celestial body... in czech). I haven't seen the former used at all, and the later I remember seeing once in translated version of one of Dragonlance books, where Mina used it. Thought it was a translation mistake, as someone translated the word literally, but apparently it's valid term for the weapon. Also simply palcát s ostny (mace with spikes).

After some research, cep is used mainly for the two-handed polearm flail, also called okovaný cep (iron-shod flail), derived from the grain tresher, less often for the one-handed one. Řemdih is used purely for the military version, both one- and two-handed, and it's in fact incorrect term if used for morningstar (but still in use). Biják is either one, but specifically refers to flails with non-ball (rectangular, rod) head.