Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post

Skarg · 07-19-2019, 10:26 AM

I think xane has it right in that summary.

Though it would add a new method for getting around bonus polearm damage that's sort of interesting and makes some sense from a certain way of imagining things, I don't think that's the intent.

(But I may be biased, as I'm not a fan of the 3-hex straight line requirement for the attacker, either. Probably partly because we always played with the original rules that didn't have that and didn't find it a problem, and have played decades of GURPS since, my imagination of what polearm charge bonuses are about does not include running in a straight line to do more damage. To me, 1-hex polearm charge bonuses make sense because I think there should be a major advantage in having a long polearm as two figures move inside the polearm's reach, due to there being a long impaling weapon between them.)

Also because the 3-hex requirement is often easy to bypass if need be by backing up and going forward 3 in so many cases, which seems a little gamey to me.

07-19-2019, 10:26 AM	#28
Skarg Join Date: May 2015	Re: New Pole Weapon Rules I think xane has it right in that summary. Though it would add a new method for getting around bonus polearm damage that's sort of interesting and makes some sense from a certain way of imagining things, I don't think that's the intent. (But I may be biased, as I'm not a fan of the 3-hex straight line requirement for the attacker, either. Probably partly because we always played with the original rules that didn't have that and didn't find it a problem, and have played decades of GURPS since, my imagination of what polearm charge bonuses are about does not include running in a straight line to do more damage. To me, 1-hex polearm charge bonuses make sense because I think there should be a major advantage in having a long polearm as two figures move inside the polearm's reach, due to there being a long impaling weapon between them.) Also because the 3-hex requirement is often easy to bypass if need be by backing up and going forward 3 in so many cases, which seems a little gamey to me.