Why does pole arm master not work on all pole arms

[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.

[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.

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

[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.