Long Maces

[benz72]

Originally Posted by tbone

Sure, I can see that. Same with PCs who overcome the slowness with high ST.

But PCs who willingly choose a greataxe or maul, and just accept that Ready requirement after every attack... Pretty darn rare, I think!

I expect this is an artifact of the 'must do something EVERY TURN!' paradigm in player thought. It's the same thing with Evaluate and Aim to a lesser extent. Even Feint doesn't get the love it deserves because players fear 'not doing damage NOW NOW NOW'.
If I were going to use this in play (as a GM) I think I'd have some teamwork with a pair of axemen or an axeman and a weapon& shield guy who can do sacrificial block/parry. Good coordination of Waits, AoD, AoA and Step should let a well trained team chew through opposition, especially if they are not outnumbered or flanked.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by benz72

I expect this is an artifact of the 'must do something EVERY TURN!' paradigm in player thought. It's the same thing with Evaluate and Aim to a lesser extent. Even Feint doesn't get the love it deserves because players fear 'not doing damage NOW NOW NOW'.

None of that is caused by psychology. It's caused by those options being objectively bad in most cases. If an attack sequence takes twice as long to perform and isn't twice as effective, it's a bad choice. Evaluate+Attack is almost always worse than attacking twice. Same for Feint+Attack. Attacking once with a double-dagger weapon is almost always less effective than attacking twice with a weapon that lets you attack every turn (aim gets a special case, as it's often a larger bonus on a roll with a lower base chance).

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by benz72

I expect this is an artifact of the 'must do something EVERY TURN!' paradigm in player thought. It's the same thing with Evaluate and Aim to a lesser extent. Even Feint doesn't get the love it deserves because players fear 'not doing damage NOW NOW NOW'.
If I were going to use this in play (as a GM) I think I'd have some teamwork with a pair of axemen or an axeman and a weapon& shield guy who can do sacrificial block/parry. Good coordination of Waits, AoD, AoA and Step should let a well trained team chew through opposition, especially if they are not outnumbered or flanked.

A single heavy axeman with a couple supporting shield-carriers (who would also be carrying some sort of weapon, probably Parry 0 rather than Parry U so they can Parry attacks against themselves and Sacrificial Block attacks against their charge), could indeed be quite powerful... but honestly I think the difference between, say, a Halberd and a Dueling Halberd isn't really enough to justify needing to burn a Ready every time you make an attack. Now, if you allow for using an attack for a Ready (like Quick-Shooting Bows does), then the Halberd is arguably worth it - that would involve at attack at -6 (and maybe another roll, also at -6, to quick-Ready, just like for a bow, which would approximately work out to a -8), while a Technique that boosts a Dueling Halberd to the Halberd's damage would be at -2 (for +1 damage), and one that boosted the Reach to match isn't available, although if it were you could justify between a -4 and -6 (boosting Reach is an option for All Out Attack; AOA normally gives a benefit somewhere between a +4 - as for Dedicated and Strong, as well as Double when using two weapons - and a +6 - as for Double when using a single weapon). And of course a Weapon Master could make better use of such an option, being at -3 instead of -6.

Of course, I'll note that "must do something every turn" mindset isn't so much to blame here as the fact that, in GURPS, getting two attacks in a given timeframe is typically much more useful than, as in the above case, getting a single attack with +1 Damage and +1 Reach in that same timeframe. I suspect if you put a character wielding a Dueling Halberd and a character wielding a Halberd in the same situation (even including cases where the characters have allies to defend for them and are able to manage distance such that the +1 Reach actually helps, and even if you let the Halberd-wielder use Rapid Strike to Quick Ready the Halberd), the majority of the time the first character would perform much better than the second.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It's caused by those options being objectively bad in most cases. If an attack sequence takes twice as long to perform and isn't twice as effective, it's a bad choice.

In open melee, this is usually the case.

Evaluate+Attack is almost always worse than attacking twice.

The case where it isn't is when there no time pressure, and the target is unaware of you. Then Evaluate is a good option for improving your odds of hitting a difficult location, and you should try for multiple evaluates.

Same for Feint+Attack.

Under 4e, Feint is mostly useful when you're more skilled than an opponent who nonetheless has good active defences. Then it can be more effective for reducing those defences than Deceptive Attack.

Also, a Defensive Feint (Martial Arts p. 101) is excellent against slam attacks.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by johndallman

In open melee, this is usually the case.

And thus you don't see them being used, which was my core point.

Another situation where feint is a bit more useful is when using weapons that require a turn to ready, because feinting does not unready your weapon.