Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[fusilier]

Surprised no one has mentioned this cavalry charge of WW2 on the Eastern Front:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge...at_Izbushensky

[Khedrac]

And always remember, before getting too derogatory about soldiers carrying swords in WW2, that Major John Churchill (a.k.a. Fighting John and Mad Jack) of the British Army is usually credited with getting the last "kill using a longbow" during WW2. He regarded officers without swords as "improperly dressed" - his sword was a claymore which he lost in the fighting at Salerno and had to go back for!

[Lacco]

I remember having different experiences with RoS. I even opened a thread about it a year ago https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...ices-to-attack
I would be interested in discussing it, obviously not in this thread.

Apologies. I wrote a fairly detailed answer to your post, but the forum chew it and spat out nothing.

I will try to compose it again and PM you. The overall answer was done pretty well by KineticDiplomat, but there are few things to add.

There is a good reason why the overwheling majority of games use some kinf of abstract combat system. If well done the moving parts of the system are evocative enough that your mind can construct a visual on how any particular interaction plays out.

How das Blade of The Iron Throne fares in that regard? Can it handle Ogres, Hellhounds, Bears, Dragons, Zombies or Ghosts as well it can handle humans?

Original RoS was constructed with mainly humanoid enemies. Additional books (Of Man and Beasts, Flower of Battle and Companion) provided some additions - mainly the first mentioned - including giants, trolls and dragons. Undead too.

But where a zombie is relatively low-level threat in D20, the undead of RoS were terrifying - you could cut them down to pieces, but the pieces would continue the fight.

Looking back on the system, it did best when facing humanoid enemies, but had its share of fantasy goodness. I would assume Blade would fare even better, as it was a compilation of everything that was good on the RoS + some bonuses.

Spoiler: Spoiler

Show

One good example: killing a dragon. I have no idea how it would look if you took just fighters, rogues, rangers and barbarians to the fight - my experience with DnD is too limited. But in RoS the battle would be epic... or short (TPK), depending on your approach. Dragons have terribly high Toughness stat (damage resistance) and maybe the highest armor stat, which means to damage it beyond scratches you have to get a good roll.

So you either go in full force, trying to overcome incredibly high armour over most of the body (ideally? knight charging the dragon with a lance would use the strength of the horse instead of his own; two-handed heavy poleaxes, hammers and axes), aim for the "naked" parts (very small areas - eyes, mouth, armpits) and bleed it to death via death of a thousand cuts.

All this while fighting a creature that can stomp a legendary warrior to the ground if he just stands in the open - one hit from a dragon would spell death to most people easily.

So, what you would do? Get some mercenaries to work as meat shields and fight smart. Lure the dragon somewhere he can not maneuver well, maybe use poison and take cover & make sure it does not hit you while you wait for your opening. Have few good archers (or better: veteran archers, maybe few heavy crossbows) and uneven terrain, with hiding places, cover and possibility to get higher than the dragon is. Oh and be sure to use the Spiritual Attributes (ideally your luck, your passionate hatred of all draconic and your oath to slay a dragon).

Also: RoS models stagger well, so one of your options would be to pummel the poor dragon with as much hits from heavy blunt & mass weapons so it does not even have power to stand up and fight back. Risky option, but would be doable.

So, the fight would take around 30 minutes if you knew the rules/mechanics well... but it would be epic.

It's definitely not be-all-end-all system, but a good alternative.

If they deserve it, please name them!

RoS provides two sets of grapple rules: the core ones (relatively easy to learn and grow into) and expanded (Flower of Battle supplement; not as complicated as they sound if you have the memory for it or make good notes - they take up some 10 pages if I remember well). They allow you to pin your opponent, throw them, break limbs, choke, fight dirty... and do it relatively smoothly.

That said, you first have to get used to the main combat system, which is incredibly different from DnD. Learning the core combat mechanics (initiative, dice pools, rounds & exchanges, basic offensive and defensive manuevers) takes somewhere around 2-3 combats and from then you start to discover all the possibilities and tactics and add it up. It's also not as crunchy as it looks like - and the combats flow well when you get the basics down. Only when you reach the "legendary" level it gets bogged down - but it's a long way there.

I would suggest everyone to try it at least once - especially if you happen to have a GM block because you feel like you have done everything. Even stupid bandits are a threat - and smart bandits double so. The game is basically Tucker's Kobolds the RPG - even the combat primer states that if you go in charging, you will die and suggests you fight smart.

But if you decide to give it a whirl, you should not start with RoS. The rules are... well, old. The book is disorganized, there are missing rules you have to interpret/create so the system works. Do not even try the magic system. Start with BoIT.

To keep us short and on the Real World Part, I can say it handles classic S&S enemies well (undead, daemons, vampires, werewolves, a pack of wolves, Grendel from Beowulf, etc.), albeit at a different scaling than D&D.

Anyhow, I’ll answer black knight in his thread in order to avoid cluttering the real world one.

Unfortunately, the thread you both mention has been open for so long I assume it would cound as thread necromancy. Please contact one of the mods regarding this. I would like to continue the debate there.

If not, we can still open a new one for the questions.

[Brother Oni]

Aside from the most recent conflicts with asymmetric warfare, the next one I can think of involving formal militaries is during the start of WW2,

Assymetrical warfare is not modern, and especially noteworthy in this context - how many TTRPGs pit PCs against overwhelming odds?

Please don't misrepresent my posts by selective editing. I even mentioned a 17th century example of asymmetric warfare in the same post.

I never claimed that asymmetric warfare was a modern phenomenon, I was trying to think of examples of asymmetric warfare between formal militaries. Under-equipped natives against formal military forces is something that can be found repeatedly throughout history, especially during the colonial era.

[AdAstra]

Please don't misrepresent my posts by selective editing. I even mentioned a 17th century example of asymmetric warfare in the same post.

I never claimed that asymmetric warfare was a modern phenomenon, I was trying to think of examples of asymmetric warfare between formal militaries. Under-equipped natives against formal military forces is something that can be found repeatedly throughout history, especially during the colonial era.

EDIT: Wait, completely forgot we were talking about the distant past, so the Toyota War is irrelevant here

What definition of asymmetric warfare are we using? Technological asymmetry, or just militaries with wildly different capabilities?

[Vinyadan]

EDIT: Wait, completely forgot we were talking about the distant past, so the Toyota War is irrelevant here

As Mr Toyoda said in 1939, "This is a good time for motorisation."

[KineticDiplomat]

I suspect that prior to the currently emerging age of state liminal maneuver, you’ll have a very hard time finding asymmetric warfare between two state armies.

For one, the nation state as we know it spends its formative centuries in Europe, and when it comes out of Europe the other side doesn’t look like that. In 1800 you would struggle to find a non-western “State” with a “state army”. So it becomes “state army versus however the locals fight”, which while often potentially asymmetric, is by definition not two state armies.

The armies within states, in contrast, have fairly similar technological levels until the industrial revolution - you could maybe make an argument that Russia spent some time behind the power curve, but certainly by the time of Frederick they were basically caught up.

And since the state initially came about to impose order from the top down within and protect/conquer those without, that meant having some sort of hierarchical centralized army that fought like...well...a regular army. Which means that while there were doctrinal and organizational differences, they all looked pretty similar.

Even after the offset strategies, one could argue that T-72s dying in the desert didn’t represent asymmetric warfare so much as being completely outclassed in symmetric warfare.

Which raises an interest RPG point - if you can reliably expect monsters, nooks, and PCs to line up an slug it out toe to toe, using basically the same stuff just the PCs do it better - it probably isn’t asymmetric just because there’s five PCs, any more than Barbarossa was asymmetric because there were less Germans.

[AdAstra]

I suspect that prior to the currently emerging age of state liminal maneuver, you’ll have a very hard time finding asymmetric warfare between two state armies.

For one, the nation state as we know it spends its formative centuries in Europe, and when it comes out of Europe the other side doesn’t look like that. In 1800 you would struggle to find a non-western “State” with a “state army”. So it becomes “state army versus however the locals fight”, which while often potentially asymmetric, is by definition not two state armies.

The armies within states, in contrast, have fairly similar technological levels until the industrial revolution - you could maybe make an argument that Russia spent some time behind the power curve, but certainly by the time of Frederick they were basically caught up.

And since the state initially came about to impose order from the top down within and protect/conquer those without, that meant having some sort of hierarchical centralized army that fought like...well...a regular army. Which means that while there were doctrinal and organizational differences, they all looked pretty similar.

Even after the offset strategies, one could argue that T-72s dying in the desert didn’t represent asymmetric warfare so much as being completely outclassed in symmetric warfare.

Which raises an interest RPG point - if you can reliably expect monsters, nooks, and PCs to line up an slug it out toe to toe, using basically the same stuff just the PCs do it better - it probably isn’t asymmetric just because there’s five PCs, any more than Barbarossa was asymmetric because there were less Germans.

That's why we need to clarify what is meant by Asymmetric Warfare, or even what a state is for the purposes of this discussion. Do the Mongols count? Because they definitely were organized and fought a lot of also-organized states' armies. They might not qualify as a "state" per se, but they also weren't exactly just random marauders.

As for DnD combat, I would say that cases of one big monster vs The Party or The Party vs hordes of mooks are pretty asymmetric, at least in the tactical sense. And in a strategic sense, typically adventuring parties go up against reasonably large and organized groups, whole states even, so that's definitely asymmetrical so long as you count the Party as a legitimate player.

[KineticDiplomat]

Acknowledging that the state didn’t suddenly leap into being at Westphalia, it is still a decent mark as to when we start seeing modern states and what the modern west considers a formal army with all the distinctions that we basically envision when we think “army.”

Prior to that, so many entities claim the legitimate right to use force that much of our perception is invariably skewed when we envision them. Banking houses, families, clans, religious orders, generals supposedly representing a city or just themselves with forces gathered from across wherever...well, suffice to say that the idea of a “state” army with due loyalty to a nation rather than the raising/employing figures simply isn’t there. Even the comparatively advanced Chinese empire is more a confederation of culturally aligned families than a “state”.

So what does that have to do with assymetry?

Well, for one it means that it isn’t a clean case of “mongols fought Russians” so much as “mongols fought a local lord of Russian ethnicity and bonds who may or may not have a claim on assistance from others, but just as likely had some random religious order on their side”.

Which to our discussion really means we’re discussing gunpowder and beyond if we’re defining state on state armies.

[KineticDiplomat]

As to RPGs, a simple difference in numbers doesn’t make a conflict asymmetrical.

Take the 1814 campaigns. Napoleon is outnumbered, but defeats the allies in sequence tactically (and fails to achieve anything with that operationally, natch), much as PCs fight waves of a bigger organization.

But it’s still symmetrical. He has a bunch of guys that look like an army and using muskets and cannons that go and fight a bunch of other guys that look like an army carrying muskets and cannons in a series of open field battles where both sides - to grossly simplify - line up and fight in much the same manner. The fact that he is outnumbered and still wins doesn’t change the fact that this a very symmetrical conflict both tactically and technologically.

In turn, PCs essentially line up and swap fireballs/power attacks with a host of mooks and bosses doing the same thing. Both sides have the same tools, and both sides line up to have a smash out (that the GM will usually ensure the PCs win). That the PCs are 3-5 people fighting “the as big as I need it to be horde” doesn’t change that.

Tucker’s Kobolds are asymmetric tactically, even if technologically they have the same tools as the PCs. They don’t line up for a dice off.

And technologically (so to speak) play balance almost always ensures the same basic range of tools is available to PCs and their opponents, preventing technical asymmetry

[AdAstra]

As to RPGs, a simple difference in numbers doesn’t make a conflict asymmetrical.

Take the 1814 campaigns. Napoleon is outnumbered, but defeats the allies in sequence tactically (and fails to achieve anything with that operationally, natch), much as PCs fight waves of a bigger organization.

But it’s still symmetrical. He has a bunch of guys that look like an army and using muskets and cannons that go and fight a bunch of other guys that look like an army carrying muskets and cannons in a series of open field battles where both sides - to grossly simplify - line up and fight in much the same manner. The fact that he is outnumbered and still wins doesn’t change the fact that this a very symmetrical conflict both tactically and technologically.

In turn, PCs essentially line up and swap fireballs/power attacks with a host of mooks and bosses doing the same thing. Both sides have the same tools, and both sides line up to have a smash out (that the GM will usually ensure the PCs win). That the PCs are 3-5 people fighting “the as big as I need it to be horde” doesn’t change that.

Tucker’s Kobolds are asymmetric tactically, even if technologically they have the same tools as the PCs. They don’t line up for a dice off.

And technologically (so to speak) play balance almost always ensures the same basic range of tools is available to PCs and their opponents, preventing technical asymmetry

There's a difference here, and that's that Napolean's individual soldiers were not radically different from anyone else's soldiers. On the other hand, a Dragon, even one with PC class levels, is very different from a gaggle of non-dragon PCs. Even if mechanically the tools are similar (attack rolls and damage), at least in-universe a giant Dragon vs a regular person(s) is pretty asymmetrical even if both sides are equivalent in power.

In addition, DnD is often played with tactical asymmetry as well. Monsters played poorly (intentionally or not) will generally rely on sheer attrition, distributed haphazardly amongst the PCs. PCs playing tactically (which is usually more common than the DM doing so due to less to manage and the DM not necessarily trying to win) will focus fire and rely a lot on maneuver and positioning.

[Zombimode]

Tucker’s Kobolds are asymmetric tactically, even if technologically they have the same tools as the PCs. They don’t line up for a dice off.

Tucker's Kobolds are asymmetric because they don't fight using the rules of the system, the fight using DM fiat while the PCs are still bound by rules.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Tucker's Kobolds are asymmetric because they don't fight using the rules of the system, the fight using DM fiat while the PCs are still bound by rules.

No, that's not what Tucker's kobolds are. They are regular kobolds played straight by the DM, rules-wise, but tactically smart and taking full advantage of their tools, numbers, and environment, i.e. the dungeon. Tucker's kobolds safely shoot crossbows from murder holes behind the wall, set devastating traps, and fight in formation. In contrast, standard dumb kobolds charge blindly at powerful foes, and promptly die comical and very predictable deaths.

Here's the original article on Tucker's kobolds, from Wizards' site.

[KineticDiplomat]

Raw differences I. power or prowess does not, in its own right, constitute asymmetrical warfare.

A bunch of export model T-72Ms that line up in the desert in the face of total supremacy to fight top of the line western MBTs are as helpless as any PC in front of a dragon. But it’s still symmetrical conflict. Both sides are basically fighting some doctrinal variation of a conventional war using roughly the same organization and theoretical approach to conflict, just one that’s utterly unfair for one side. Drubbings like this teach people to develop asymmetric methods.

For our RPG purpose, the fact that PCs are a bit more clever in their positioning or spell use doesn’t change the fact that both sides lined up in a room and decided to duke it out. They are still fighting in fundamentally the same style with the same basic tools and methods: one side is just better at it. So it’s still symmetrical. Just as the Red Army versus the Heer was a symmetrical fight despite several tactical and organizational differences.

Where you start seeing asymmetry is when the fighting is in a categorically different vein between the two sides. If the PCs are ridiculous PC Power Kids, but they keep losing to a bunch of trivial powered enemies who might actively avoid fights with the PCs while undermining them elsewhere - asymmetry.

If the Kobolds keep executing hit and run because they know they can’t stand toe to toe, asymmetry. Etc.

[Vinyadan]

I don't remember who it was, but thanks to whoever gave me a heads up about the disappearance of the timocratic subdivisions in Athens over the centuries. It was a very useful notion.

[AdAstra]

Raw differences I. power or prowess does not, in its own right, constitute asymmetrical warfare.

A bunch of export model T-72Ms that line up in the desert in the face of total supremacy to fight top of the line western MBTs are as helpless as any PC in front of a dragon. But it’s still symmetrical conflict. Both sides are basically fighting some doctrinal variation of a conventional war using roughly the same organization and theoretical approach to conflict, just one that’s utterly unfair for one side. Drubbings like this teach people to develop asymmetric methods.

For our RPG purpose, the fact that PCs are a bit more clever in their positioning or spell use doesn’t change the fact that both sides lined up in a room and decided to duke it out. They are still fighting in fundamentally the same style with the same basic tools and methods: one side is just better at it. So it’s still symmetrical. Just as the Red Army versus the Heer was a symmetrical fight despite several tactical and organizational differences.

Where you start seeing asymmetry is when the fighting is in a categorically different vein between the two sides. If the PCs are ridiculous PC Power Kids, but they keep losing to a bunch of trivial powered enemies who might actively avoid fights with the PCs while undermining them elsewhere - asymmetry.

If the Kobolds keep executing hit and run because they know they can’t stand toe to toe, asymmetry. Etc.

I see your point on the other things, but the inferior outdated export tanks vs modern tanks isn't really the same as dragon vs non-dragons. One is a matchup between two types of tanks, the other is two entirely different species of creature.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I see your point on the other things, but the inferior outdated export tanks vs modern tanks isn't really the same as dragon vs non-dragons. One is a matchup between two types of tanks, the other is two entirely different species of creature.

Sure, but the main point is that the difference in how the armies are equipped (especied?) needs to lead to a difference in tactics and strategy. A dragon standing there clawing and breathing fire employs very similar tactics to a group of adventurers where the fighter uses his sword and the wizard casts fireball. If the dragon realizes the party has the advantage in such a conflict, abandons and seals its lair in order to go for more of a guerrilla type fighting style with aerial surprise attacks, keeping an eye on the party using its kobold underlings as scouts who have orders to avoid engagements at all costs, that could count as asymmetric. At least until the wizard figures they need to fight fire with fire, starts preparing overland flight several times each day and uses scrying (or the fighter's leadership feat) for intelligence. Then the conflict becomes symmetrical again.

[KineticDiplomat]

Expert has the right of it.

And while there is an argument to be made that, say, a Game of Thrones dragon represents asymmetry since it represents essentially an unanswerable nuclear weapon unless you are also a "nuclear power" , the ones you find in D&D who are generally killable by a mid level party who stand up for the D&D boxing match. That's symmetrical.

As to the T-72 comparison...well, a mid level party will probably have a good chance in a toe to toe fight with a dragon. The T-72Ms are committing suicide, they just don't know it.

[Draconi Redfir]

So what can ya'll tell me about Tridents? want to get an image done of my character's Trident weapon and want to know what to look for / to avoid.

I'm really looking for real-world information about Tridents so i can draw inspiration from them for a fictional trident. that isn't fully pictured yet.

Two caviats:
This Trident has chains connected to animated skulls connected to the prongs, and a skull (Possibly transformed into Ebony or something, idk yet) embedded either into the point where the prongs connect, or the point just below that, at the very top of the shaft.

Whole thing is made out of metal (adamantine), but might also have some leather wraps in grip-areas if those exist on tridents at all.

main worry is that if the embedded skull is below the prongs, it might throw off the weight of the whole thing if the trident needs to be thrown or something.

What would you recommend for some do's / don'ts? Keeping in mind this is a fantasy magical trident with skulls chained to it.

[tyckspoon]

So what can ya'll tell me about Tridents? want to get an image done of my character's Trident weapon and want to know what to look for / to avoid.

Two caviats:
This Trident has chains connected to animated skulls connected to the prongs, and a skull (Possibly transformed into Ebony or something, idk yet) embedded either into the point where the prongs connect, or the point just below that, at the very top of the shaft.

Whole thing is made out of metal (adamantine), but might also have some leather wraps in grip-areas if those exist on tridents at all.

main worry is that if the embedded skull is below the prongs, it might throw off the weight of the whole thing if the trident needs to be thrown or something.

What would you recommend for some do's / don'ts? Keeping in mind this is a fantasy magical trident with skulls chained to it.

Don't drape chains and skulls all over your weapon The very first point in just about any 'how do I make this fantasy weapon work like a real weapon' question is going to be 'take off all the fantasy bling.'

I would really just run with 'it's magic, part of the magic is making up for how the decorations muck up the weight distribution.'

[Max_Killjoy]

So what can ya'll tell me about Tridents? want to get an image done of my character's Trident weapon and want to know what to look for / to avoid.

Two caviats:
This Trident has chains connected to animated skulls connected to the prongs, and a skull (Possibly transformed into Ebony or something, idk yet) embedded either into the point where the prongs connect, or the point just below that, at the very top of the shaft.

Whole thing is made out of metal (adamantine), but might also have some leather wraps in grip-areas if those exist on tridents at all.

main worry is that if the embedded skull is below the prongs, it might throw off the weight of the whole thing if the trident needs to be thrown or something.

What would you recommend for some do's / don'ts? Keeping in mind this is a fantasy magical trident with skulls chained to it.

How long is it overall?

Being all metal, with an actual haft most of the length, and over 6 feet, there's a real risk of it being comically heavy.

[Draconi Redfir]

more looking for general structure ideas. how they're intended to be used, what's usually common on them. best i'm finding is the "for Honor" trident wielded by the gladiator class. kinda looks like i has handwraps, but also this weird thing in the middle between them? not sure if that's supposed to be paint, cloth, or some separate material.

plus you know, the entire rest of the thing. straight prongs or hooked, pommel at the end or none, grips or no, size of prong to length of shaft ratio, etc.

Basically i'm looking for real-world examples and information to draw inspiration from. suppose i should have worded my first post better, sorry.

How long is it overall?

Being all metal, with an actual haft most of the length, and over 6 feet, there's a real risk of it being comically heavy.

It's a Pathfinder trident, which reads the shaft as being 4ft long. not enough to be a reach weapon.

admittedly, might have been thinking too much in "Aquaman" terms of Tridents when i made it. real world tridents seem to be mostly wood.

[Vinyadan]

Well, tridents are intended to be used for fishing. They have multiple heads, because you are aiming for a small animal swimming beneath the water, so it maximises the chances of hitting something. And they have barbs, to make sure that the fish stays on the weapon when you pull it out of the water.

The retiarius was an artificially created class of fighter that was a reference to fishing. Retiarius means "the one who works with a fishnet", so he had a fishnet and, to keep to the fisherman's theme, a trident, because it was meant to be used against fish. You can take a look at some images here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retiarius

Another fighting version is the trishula, but I'm not sure that it was actually used by people.

[Clistenes]

Some asian trident weapons look like they would work like some sort of halberd, the side prongs being more like sword blades able to slash an opponent.

Some trishuls look very similar to the chinese trident-axe.

[AdAstra]

So what can ya'll tell me about Tridents? want to get an image done of my character's Trident weapon and want to know what to look for / to avoid.

I'm really looking for real-world information about Tridents so i can draw inspiration from them for a fictional trident. that isn't fully pictured yet.

Two caviats:
This Trident has chains connected to animated skulls connected to the prongs, and a skull (Possibly transformed into Ebony or something, idk yet) embedded either into the point where the prongs connect, or the point just below that, at the very top of the shaft.

Whole thing is made out of metal (adamantine), but might also have some leather wraps in grip-areas if those exist on tridents at all.

main worry is that if the embedded skull is below the prongs, it might throw off the weight of the whole thing if the trident needs to be thrown or something.

What would you recommend for some do's / don'ts? Keeping in mind this is a fantasy magical trident with skulls chained to it.

I just can't see any justification for the skulls on chains. As far as you've stated all it does is muck up the balance and handling of the weapon. If you wanted that look, armor would probably be a more justifiable place to put them (albeit still impractical). Either that or making the skulls and chains very small, so that they're more like floating tassels.

[Pauly]

Tridents aren’t fighting weapons. You basically triple the amount of force you need to penetrate if there was a single spike. They are good for trapping and pinning a soft target like a fish or a bale of hay.

What you may want to look at is the corseque or ranseaur family of polearms. They have a strong central spike, a spearhead if you like, and to smaller spikes set further back. There is a lot of variation of design of the secondary spikes, some more suited to chopping, some more suited to trapping enemy weapons, some more suited as crossguards to prevent overpenetration.

http://www.maquetland.com/v2/images_...s/Ranseurs.jpg

[Draconi Redfir]

yeah, realized shortly after posting my last comment that finding examples of combat tridents is near impossible outside of fiction, best you can find is roman gladiators. even in fiction it's pretty rare.

thank you for your input everyone, it's given me a lot to think about actually. in hindsight this probably wasn't the best thread to go to about this since they're fishing tools and not weapons, so sorry about that. Thank you nonetheless though!

[Max_Killjoy]

yeah, realized shortly after posting my last comment that finding examples of combat tridents is near impossible outside of fiction, best you can find is roman gladiators. even in fiction it's pretty rare.

thank you for your input everyone, it's given me a lot to think about actually. in hindsight this probably wasn't the best thread to go to about this since they're fishing tools and not weapons, so sorry about that. Thank you nonetheless though!

I don't think the thread was a bad place to ask, they're depicted as weapons in fiction and were used by gladiators.

Something LIKE a trident, but with the two side points shorter and acting as combination "wings" to prevent over-penetration and "spikes" to give a secondary swung usage against armor and for hooking riders, might work.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I don't think the thread was a bad place to ask, they're depicted as weapons in fiction and were used by gladiators.

Something LIKE a trident, but with the two side points shorter and acting as combination "wings" to prevent over-penetration and "spikes" to give a secondary swung usage against armor and for hooking riders, might work.

The wings could also work as some form of sword catchers, for parrying. Granted, that function probably works better with wings on a shorter weapon and closer to the hilt, like a sai or a trident dagger or the I think Japanese but maybe Chinese (and quite possibly shared) bar mace whose name escapes both me and Google at this point. But especially when used in a formation it could probably still be a legitimate useful function on a polearm.

[Willie the Duck]

The wings could also work as some form of sword catchers, for parrying. Granted, that function probably works better with wings on a shorter weapon and closer to the hilt, like a sai or a trident dagger or the I think Japanese but maybe Chinese (and quite possibly shared) bar mace whose name escapes both me and Google at this point. But especially when used in a formation it could probably still be a legitimate useful function on a polearm.

There are polearms like spetums and partisans and winged spears which are rough analogues to the idea. My impression is that they are more for locking/binding other long weapons than direct parring (although that might be a distinction only in my own head).