Weapons with Reach

[Supplement Four]

Let's talk about how using a weapon with reach (10' attack radius instead of a 5' attack radius) can be a tactical advantage.

Thoughts?

 

[Oly]

Well one strong advantage is being able to have an Attack of Opportunity against anyone who has to do a move action other than a 5ft step to get next next you.

Also if you can somehow keep someone away from you you can attack them but they can't attack you. Something that I don't believe is explicitly stated in the rules but I'd allow is having an ally in front of you. That allows for things such as two ranks of soldiers with the first having swords and the second attacking "through" them with long pikes/spears. All very sensible.

The downside, and it's a huge downside, is that you can't attack someone next to you.

That's a real problem when clever opponents realise that and start boxing you in.

 

[Majestic7]

Place a few guys with long spears (or pikes) in a Z -like formation, with first ones five feet ahead of those behind them. They may be slighlty on the side instead of directly behind. The first guys poke with their spears. The guys on the back have a ready action to trip the enemies who five-foot or charge the first guys. The enemies get knocked prone, the whole formation takes a five-foot step backwards. Fallen enemies are poked, they stand up triggering Attacks of Opportunity and they are poked some more. The guys in the back have renewed their readiness to trip approaching enemies, so the hilarity continues onwards.

A (retarded) humoristic version : Thieves hiding in bushes with pikes, sneaking in to a circle around the enemy. They flank the enemy (from the bushes with those damn long sticks!) and poke sneak attacks. If the enemy tries to approach one of the thieves, the other ones do some more sneak attacks with their Attacks of Opportunity.

 

[Supplement Four]

The downside, and it's a huge downside, is that you can't attack someone next to you.

Really? It's only 10' foot away, and not 5' & 10' away.

I ask because the quarterstaff is a reach weapon. It seems silly that the quarterstaff can't be used to fight someone right in front of you.

 

[maladaar]

The (quarter)staff is an exception to the rule.

 

[Vortigern]

Personally I find the entire 'can't attack adjacent' rule rather cumbersome and unrealistic. That is one of the rules I think serves more of a 'game balance' function rather than any simulationist purpose.

 

[Majestic7]

Personally I find the entire 'can't attack adjacent' rule rather cumbersome and unrealistic. That is one of the rules I think serves more of a 'game balance' function rather than any simulationist purpose.

Haha, you really, really can't use words "simulationism" and "D20/D&D" in the same sentence without it sounding absurd, you know. For pikes and such it makes sense but for long spears, yeah, it is stretched. Something like -4 to hit too close should be enough.

 

[Oly]

Haha, you really, really can't use words "simulationism" and "D20/D&D" in the same sentence without it sounding absurd, you know. For pikes and such it makes sense but for long spears, yeah, it is stretched. Something like -4 to hit too close should be enough.

I think there is some logic in the ruling rather than just game balance. A long spear with the pointy bit right at the very end will not be very efficient at attacking someone stood next to you.

How do other games deal with it?

The Stormbringer game does it the D20 way, reach weapons can't attack people stood next to their wielder.

However Pendragon doesn't give any penalty, though it is a much simpler system.

So as said I think it's reasonable enough to do something about reach weapons and close opponents.

What I'd be tempted to do would be to give them a -4 to attack (which is pretty harsh) and only let them do as much damage as a quarter staff.

 

[Supplement Four]

Haha, you really, really can't use words "simulationism" and "D20/D&D" in the same sentence without it sounding absurd, you know.

I disagree, and my game is an example of just how simulationist a d20 game can be (without many house rules, too).

But, that's another topic thread.

 

[Trodax]

Something that I don't believe is explicitly stated in the rules but I'd allow is having an ally in front of you. That allows for things such as two ranks of soldiers with the first having swords and the second attacking "through" them with long pikes/spears.

By the rules I believe you can do this, but the guy you're attacking will be granted the benefit of cover because your ally is in the way (a +4 Defense bonus).

 

[maladaar]

Here is one place it states that reach weapons cannot attack adjacent squares.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#reachWeapons

You can also look at page 143 of Conan RPG 2e under Melee and Ranged Weapons. Look at the italics (Reach Weapons paragraph). It is explicitly stated.

 

[Oly]

Something that I don't believe is explicitly stated in the rules but I'd allow is having an ally in front of you. That allows for things such as two ranks of soldiers with the first having swords and the second attacking "through" them with long pikes/spears.

By the rules I believe you can do this, but the guy you're attacking will be granted the benefit of cover because your ally is in the way (a +4 Defense bonus).

OK, that does sound very reasonable, trying to attack over the shoulders of an ally must be a bit harder than it would be without him being there.

Here is one place it states that reach weapons cannot attack adjacent squares.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#reachWeapons

You can also look at page 143 of Conan RPG 2e under Melee and Ranged Weapons. Look at the italics (Reach Weapons paragraph). It is explicitly stated.

I don't think anyone was questioning that the rules do not allow reach weapons to attack adjacent targets.

Rather people seem to be discussing if that restriction is fair/reasonable.

Personally I'm happy with it as I feel that a reach weapon must be less than ideal for attacking someone next to you. However I could easily be persuaded to allow attacks at some penalty to both the attack roll and damage.

 

[Teriudin]

Personally I find the entire 'can't attack adjacent' rule rather cumbersome and unrealistic. That is one of the rules I think serves more of a 'game balance' function rather than any simulationist purpose.

Actually, I find it more simulationist than game balancing.

Not that this is any real comparison, but I do some live-action combat using foam padded weapons, and polearms are terrifically unweildy in close combat. However, they are amazing over the shoulder or shield of an ally.

 

[Vortigern]

From my experience, similar to yours plus martial arts training/practice, the use of a spear or similar implement is... very different than someone who doesn't actually know how to use one imagines it. At least in my martial art. ( Kung Fu: Mizong Luohan )

There are many very tricky and surprising ways in which someone using such a weapon can manipulate it's length, use either end, and shift their own position to make the weapon much more effective at close fighting than people expect.

It reminds me of how people usually seem to think a greatsword is such a very slow and cumbersome weapon without knowing how exactly balanced they are or even having an inkling of what half-swording technique is like.

I think we are looking at a similar loss of collective knowledge about most ( certainly not all, there are some simply hugely long polearms I will grant the current reach rules are applicable for ) polearms and the martial arts behind their use. The techniques and strategy of the weapon matter just as much as it's construction in giving a clear estimation as to it's battlefeld use and merits... and that is something not every game designer ( or player ) has any inkling of.

 

[Supplement Four]

You can also look at page 143 of Conan RPG 2e under Melee and Ranged Weapons. Look at the italics (Reach Weapons paragraph). It is explicitly stated.

So, how does one fight with a reach weapon, then? He is forced to continually take his five foot step?

Makes sense, I guess. It costs you movement to use the weapon--maybe because its so unwieldy?

 

[Majestic7]

So, how does one fight with a reach weapon, then? He is forced to continually take his five foot step?

Makes sense, I guess. It costs you movement to use the weapon--maybe because its so unwieldy?

Yes or you can fight behind friends - or invest in tricks to stop the approaching enemies on their tracks with AoO. In D&D 3.5 there was a maneuver for the martial classes (Book of Nine Swords or something) where you stab at the enemy really scarily with your AoO with a reach weapon. Instead of causing any damage, the target must make a Will or Reflex save or he stops dead in his tracks. It might be possible to convert this power as a feat or maneuver in Conan, but I don't remember the details on how it works.

 

[maladaar]

Fighting as a martial artist and fighting in heavy armor in formation are 2 different things entirely.

Part of what made using the reach weapons so formidable was using them in formation. Groups of soldiers with reach weapons in the back combined with shorter weapons in the front line. Granted the front line could use reach weapons as well until the enemy engaged them at which point they would switch to the shorter weapons.